Gayblack Canadian Man

Foreign Policy Analysis
Fair Use – Copyright on YouTube

Fair Use – Copyright on YouTube


Hi, I’m Sari,
here to answer your copyright questions. Today’s topic is fair use. First, what is fair use? Fair use allows you to reuse
copyright-protected material under certain circumstances without getting permission
from the copyright owner. Fair use is an exception to copyright law
and is not determined by YouTube. Let me say that again. YouTube does not decide
what is fair use and what isn’t. Only the court can do that. What counts as fair use? Different countries have different rules
about when it’s OK to use material without the copyright owner’s permission. In some countries,
it’s not even called fair use. For example,
in the UK it’s referred to as fair dealing. Aside from what your country calls it,
courts usually focus on whether your use of another person’s song
or video is transformative. Basically, they’re asking if you added
new expression or meaning to the original work or if it basically copies the original. For example, in the US,
content that might be considered fair use includes commentary,
criticism or news reporting. Also, keep in mind that
just because you say something’s fair use give credit to the copyright owner or add a disclaimer
like ‘No infringement intended’ it does not mean that you’re protected. How is fair use determined by law? Determining fair use
is never a cut-and-dried process. In the US, fair use can only be
determined in court by a judge. The judge will look at your case overall
based on a few different factors. Here are a few things to keep in mind
based on what the courts look at. You’re less likely to qualify for fair use if your video merely copies someone else’s
and adds nothing else if you’re trying to monetise your video if you’re using fictional copyrighted material
rather than factual material if you borrowed a large amount of material
rather than a small portion if the main focus of your video
is the copyright-protected material or if your use of the material
harms the copyright owner’s ability to profit from their original work. So, all of these are helpful factors
to consider when thinking about fair use. But also keep in mind there’s no guarantee
that you’ll qualify for fair use just because
you take these factors into account. For example,
just because you don’t monetise your video or if you only use a small portion
of the copyrighted material that does not mean
you automatically qualify for fair use. Again,
the courts look at everything holistically and there’s always a risk involved
when using someone else’s copyrighted work. Think carefully about all of these factors
and get legal advice if needed. Companies are claiming
just a few seconds of a video. How is that not abuse? One of the biggest myths about fair use
is that there’s a minimum amount of time you’re allowed to use
someone else’s copyrighted work. But despite what some people may think there is no duration
for which you can use someone else’s content that is automatically protected
under fair use. In fact,
courts have rejected fair use arguments for songs that only sample
a few seconds of someone else’s work. So, if you’re using
any amount of content that you don’t own even a few seconds you’re taking a risk
of receiving a claim or a takedown. You have the right to argue fair use but only courts, not YouTube,
can ultimately decide whether the use of someone else’s content
is protected under fair use. Because of this our approach has been to empower creators
to remove claimed content whenever possible if they feel that it isn’t adding
significant value to their video. That’s why we’ve built tools to help you easily identify
the content being claimed in your video and remove or swap out claimed music with copyright-safe tracks
from the free YouTube Audio Library. We’re also now requiring claimants
to add timestamps to these claims so you know exactly
which piece of your video is being claimed. We’ve also updated our editing tools so that when you manually remove
the content claimed in your video the claim is automatically released restoring monetisation to your video
if you were previously monetising. Why does my content which is clearly fair use keep getting claimed by Content ID? Automated systems like Content ID
can’t determine fair use which is a subjective, case-by-case decision
that can only be made by a court. While YouTube can’t arbitrate
fair use disputes and automated systems like Content ID
can’t account for fair use this doesn’t mean that
fair use can’t exist on YouTube. If you’re a creator you should avoid relying on fair use
unless you understand how the rules work and you’re prepared to defend your position
through the Content ID dispute process and potentially
the counternotification process. This forces the claimant to withdraw
or to file a lawsuit. This isn’t a decision
that should be taken lightly or without legal advice. But it is the most powerful step you can take
if you want to pursue a fair use defence and will force
the most thoughtful review from the claimant. And that’s it for fair use. Check out more info in our Help Centre,
linked in the description below and be sure to check out the other videos
in our copyright series, linked here. Bye!

100 comments on “Fair Use – Copyright on YouTube

  1. Dear Sari:
    I hope you help Twitter understand how you police YouTube.
    They need to update the "Twitter Suspension Policy & include a way for Tweeters to regenerate accounts after punishment.

  2. No hablo idiomas. Un noticiero de un canal argentino, cierra a nosotros ver y oír con "este vídeo es de uso privado para los que no son argentino" soy argentino!!! No me gusta esto. Gracias. Canal América tv

  3. This copyright thing has alot of heart aches. I will advise you create your own content & use the YouTube copyright free music 🎶 on their library for nice background sound. Wish you all the best my fellow youtubers. 😀

  4. Uso aceitável, por exemplo, o miserável no Brasil paga entre 500 a 1000 reais em ingressos de shows internacionais, mas não pode usar um trecho da musica do seu artista preferido;
    O ingresso valeu a pena?

  5. Nice, but My channel is not approve Monetization, This really makes me sad and discouraged to continue to make content fair use on YouTube.

  6. شكرا من الفيديو والاستفادة منها لنشر فيديوهات لاشخاص ثاني ان شاءالله لا تتكرر

  7. короч, пизда, пацаны! да и срать! =) средний палец вверх по панку!

  8. я извиняюсь но это говнище полное) надо ютуб на блокчейне,с минимум правил

  9. Hi Sari, thank you for the video. Who are you and what are your qualifications and role within "Youtube Creator" to provide those information please? (honest question)

  10. If there are APP to edit and use music, because there is no app to download 15 seconds or more and in turn pay and deduct from the bank account the value of that copyright and the app allow after payment the written authorization and electronically signed by the author of that author or music. Solution Problem.

    Si existen APP para editar y usar musica, por que no existe una app para descargar 15 segundos o mas y a su vez pagar y descontar de la cuenta del banco el valor de ese derecho de autor y la app permitir despues del pago la autorizacion escrita y firmada electronicamente por el autor de esa autoria o musica. PROBLEMA RESUELTO

  11. So basically there's no way to make money on YouTube if you plan to call out any corruption or the mainstream media, great.

  12. Very good youtube, I just received 2 messages from you.1 where they tell me that a rights owner has claimed my video, Video title: SUPER DANGEROUS SUFFER HIT FOUAD CHAFIK, FOOTBALL DIJON TEAM PLAYER France Ligue 1 URL of video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJqavY_yPmU Copyright content: TMG monetize Claims author: LFP2 the second message you send me is a notice for copyright infringement of the same video Title of the video: SUPER DANGEROUS HIT SUFRIO FOUAD CHAFIK, TEAM PLAYER OF FOOTBALL DIJON France Ligue 1 Video URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJqavY_yPmU

    Elimination issued by: LeakIDEs I am extremely confused, HOW MANY ENTITIES CAN CLAIM A SAME VIDEO, SO I HAVE TWO CLAIMS FOR TWO DIFFERENT ENTITIES, TMG monetize Author of the claim: LFP, and THE OTHER ENTITY Elimination issued by: LeakID.YOUTUBEES DO NOT UNDERSTAND ANYTHING, WITHOUT ANY OTHER

  13. Fair use doesn't matter, bots will flag it regardless of content and claimants won't watch the video for a single second without claiming it. If you try to appeal, the appeal gets handled BY the claimant, and your only other option is to go to a legal court. Even if they claim it illegally based on fair use, you can't do anything because taking real legal action would be too expensive, especially against a media corporation, but that's the only option youtube gives to creators.

  14. Tôi không nghĩ các nhà sáng tạo phải kiểm chứng bằng những gì họ đã thuyết minh trên góc độ việc sử dụng hợp lý, Bản quyền mãi mãi là Bản quyền, tôi hiểu điều đó; YouTube có kiểm soát được hết không,? tôi luôn và mãi trân trọng những gì YouTube đã và đang làm được; sự công bằng chắc mãi có được không. Tôi muốn nói rất nhiều, nhưng có ai mà hiểu được. Xin chúc YouTube mãi mãi thành công

  15. Короче получается так, что если будешь нахваливать заимствованный материал и правообладателя, то все будет хорошо. но если вдруг захочешь покритиковать немного то сразу получишь страйк от злого правообладателя!

  16. I don't mind protection, but not at the cost of closing the door on the idea of an open-society — I think it's pretty unfortunate the way that many of these new content security approaches are being marketed. Rather than coming from the angle of "managing one's content in a rich marketplace of democratic freedom" many of these new platforms come at it from a nasty cashing-in perspective which holds the supreme value of such a service as "retributive justice" for crimes/theft. Though theft does occur (which people do want security from) I think far too many people who are using content in new transformative ways are being unfortunately barred from making new artistic commentaries.

  17. My channel go to ineligible for monetization for Reused content on 22 August 2019.
    After a month i delete 380 videos of my channel and i reapply. i get monetized again.
    Mean while from then all the videos i upload have my own text and graphics and i commentary by myself to all my videos from start until finish, i give limited time highlights with my voice and at description of video educational results.
    By law i can use as FAIR USE any contain: Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for 'Fair Use' for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research,
    I ORIGINALLY COMMENTARY TO ALL MY VIDEOS and that is a FAIR USE.
    As you mention to your videos only the court can decide for that and not YouTube.
    -Yesterday you ineligible for monetization my channel again with the excuse of Repurposing someone else's content without adding significant original commentary or educational value
    How can be that when i Commentary my self from first until the last second?
    LET THE COURTS DECIDE AND NOT A HATER THAT WORKS FOR YOU

  18. My channel go to ineligible for monetization for Reused content on 22 August 2019.
    After a month i delete 380 videos of my channel and i reapply. i get monetized again.
    Mean while from then all the videos i upload have my own text and graphics and i commentary by myself to all my videos from start until finish, i give limited time highlights with my voice and at description of video educational results.
    By law i can use as FAIR USE any contain: Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for 'Fair Use' for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research,
    I ORIGINALLY COMMENTARY TO ALL MY VIDEOS and that is a FAIR USE.
    As you mention to your videos only the court can decide for that and not YouTube.
    -Yesterday you ineligible for monetization my channel again with the excuse of Repurposing someone else's content without adding significant original commentary or educational value
    How can be that when i Commentary my self from first until the last second?
    LET THE COURTS DECIDE AND NOT A HATER THAT WORKS FOR YOU

  19. My channel go to ineligible for monetization for Reused content on 22 August 2019.
    After a month i delete 380 videos of my channel and i reapply. i get monetized again.
    Mean while from then all the videos i upload have my own text and graphics and i commentary by myself to all my videos from start until finish, i give limited time highlights with my voice and at description of video educational results.
    By law i can use as FAIR USE any contain: Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for 'Fair Use' for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research,
    I ORIGINALLY COMMENTARY TO ALL MY VIDEOS and that is a FAIR USE.
    As you mention to your videos only the court can decide for that and not YouTube.
    -Yesterday you ineligible for monetization my channel again with the excuse of Repurposing someone else's content without adding significant original commentary or educational value
    How can be that when i Commentary my self from first until the last second?
    LET THE COURTS DECIDE AND NOT A HATER THAT WORKS FOR YOU

  20. My channel go to ineligible for monetization for Reused content on 22 August 2019.
    After a month i delete 380 videos of my channel and i reapply. i get monetized again.
    Mean while from then all the videos i upload have my own text and graphics and i commentary by myself to all my videos from start until finish, i give limited time highlights with my voice and at description of video educational results.
    By law i can use as FAIR USE any contain: Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for 'Fair Use' for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research,
    I ORIGINALLY COMMENTARY TO ALL MY VIDEOS and that is a FAIR USE.
    As you mention to your videos only the court can decide for that and not YouTube.
    -Yesterday you ineligible for monetization my channel again with the excuse of Repurposing someone else's content without adding significant original commentary or educational value
    How can be that when i Commentary my self from first until the last second?
    LET THE COURTS DECIDE AND NOT A HATER THAT WORKS FOR YOU

  21. My channel go to ineligible for monetization for Reused content on 22 August 2019.
    After a month i delete 380 videos of my channel and i reapply. i get monetized again.
    Mean while from then all the videos i upload have my own text and graphics and i commentary by myself to all my videos from start until finish, i give limited time highlights with my voice and at description of video educational results.
    By law i can use as FAIR USE any contain: Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for 'Fair Use' for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research,
    I ORIGINALLY COMMENTARY TO ALL MY VIDEOS and that is a FAIR USE.
    As you mention to your videos only the court can decide for that and not YouTube.
    -Yesterday you ineligible for monetization my channel again with the excuse of Repurposing someone else's content without adding significant original commentary or educational value
    How can be that when i Commentary my self from first until the last second?
    LET THE COURTS DECIDE AND NOT A HATER THAT WORKS FOR YOU

  22. My channel go to ineligible for monetization for Reused content on 22 August 2019.
    After a month i delete 380 videos of my channel and i reapply. i get monetized again.
    Mean while from then all the videos i upload have my own text and graphics and i commentary by myself to all my videos from start until finish, i give limited time highlights with my voice and at description of video educational results.
    By law i can use as FAIR USE any contain: Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for 'Fair Use' for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research,
    I ORIGINALLY COMMENTARY TO ALL MY VIDEOS and that is a FAIR USE.
    As you mention to your videos only the court can decide for that and not YouTube.
    -Yesterday you ineligible for monetization my channel again with the excuse of Repurposing someone else's content without adding significant original commentary or educational value
    How can be that when i Commentary my self from first until the last second?
    LET THE COURTS DECIDE AND NOT A HATER THAT WORKS FOR YOU

  23. My channel go to ineligible for monetization for Reused content on 22 August 2019.
    After a month i delete 380 videos of my channel and i reapply. i get monetized again.
    Mean while from then all the videos i upload have my own text and graphics and i commentary by myself to all my videos from start until finish, i give limited time highlights with my voice and at description of video educational results.
    By law i can use as FAIR USE any contain: Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for 'Fair Use' for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research,
    I ORIGINALLY COMMENTARY TO ALL MY VIDEOS and that is a FAIR USE.
    As you mention to your videos only the court can decide for that and not YouTube.
    -Yesterday you ineligible for monetization my channel again with the excuse of Repurposing someone else's content without adding significant original commentary or educational value
    How can be that when i Commentary my self from first until the last second?
    LET THE COURTS DECIDE AND NOT A HATER THAT WORKS FOR YOU

  24. My channel go to ineligible for monetization for Reused content on 22 August 2019.
    After a month i delete 380 videos of my channel and i reapply. i get monetized again.
    Mean while from then all the videos i upload have my own text and graphics and i commentary by myself to all my videos from start until finish, i give limited time highlights with my voice and at description of video educational results.
    By law i can use as FAIR USE any contain: Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for 'Fair Use' for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research,
    I ORIGINALLY COMMENTARY TO ALL MY VIDEOS and that is a FAIR USE.
    As you mention to your videos only the court can decide for that and not YouTube.
    -Yesterday you ineligible for monetization my channel again with the excuse of Repurposing someone else's content without adding significant original commentary or educational value
    How can be that when i Commentary my self from first until the last second?
    LET THE COURTS DECIDE AND NOT A HATER THAT WORKS FOR YOU

  25. My channel go to ineligible for monetization for Reused content on 22 August 2019.
    After a month i delete 380 videos of my channel and i reapply. i get monetized again.
    Mean while from then all the videos i upload have my own text and graphics and i commentary by myself to all my videos from start until finish, i give limited time highlights with my voice and at description of video educational results.
    By law i can use as FAIR USE any contain: Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for 'Fair Use' for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research,
    I ORIGINALLY COMMENTARY TO ALL MY VIDEOS and that is a FAIR USE.
    As you mention to your videos only the court can decide for that and not YouTube.
    -Yesterday you ineligible for monetization my channel again with the excuse of Repurposing someone else's content without adding significant original commentary or educational value
    How can be that when i Commentary my self from first until the last second?
    LET THE COURTS DECIDE AND NOT A HATER THAT WORKS FOR YOU

  26. My channel go to ineligible for monetization for Reused content on 22 August 2019.
    After a month i delete 380 videos of my channel and i reapply. i get monetized again.
    Mean while from then all the videos i upload have my own text and graphics and i commentary by myself to all my videos from start until finish, i give limited time highlights with my voice and at description of video educational results.
    By law i can use as FAIR USE any contain: Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for 'Fair Use' for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research,
    I ORIGINALLY COMMENTARY TO ALL MY VIDEOS and that is a FAIR USE.
    As you mention to your videos only the court can decide for that and not YouTube.
    -Yesterday you ineligible for monetization my channel again with the excuse of Repurposing someone else's content without adding significant original commentary or educational value
    How can be that when i Commentary my self from first until the last second?
    LET THE COURTS DECIDE AND NOT A HATER THAT WORKS FOR YOU

  27. explain to me then why does youtube endorse many non-english speaking channels who are actually violating all community rules you are preaching They steal other videos, show sexual suggestive and even explicit content and use profanity yet they are approved and monetized; on the other hand, small reaction channels like mine, are being rejected for million times for what !the same reason "used content without adding any commentary" yet again ALLL of my videos include my own commentary and narration, we don't use profanity, we don't insult anyone . You apply for monetization and there is not even a real person who can actually review the channel. What you do, you make the person wait for month or longer so you can tell him afwards oops you are not eligible! YPP seems to me pretty selective. Just be honest and stop preaching about stuff that you don't care about as soon as the person get popular no matter if he uses profanity or large portion of his videos is about sexual suggestive or explicit content; all what you care about is money. I lost faith in you all. I statred over from zero and I Put all my effort into making my own reaction videos yet ypp still sabotage me and unfairly accused me of used content withOUT adding a narration,what about the my own voice narration, what about my video inculding my cats, garden, my own setting! Hypcrite rules. what about others who actually violate those rules yet u approve them. I can give hundred examples of those channels who are highly supported by you even if they are having stolen other videos, or having leterly sexual suggestive content………….What a disgrace

  28. The statement at 3:48 is totally false! I've had several videos recently in which I edited out the entire portion of claimed material so that none of it was left in the video, yet the copyright claim still remained on the video. And to make matters even worse, any attempt to dispute this "ghost" claim just resulted in an error message! In one case YouTube's Partner Support was eventually able to manually release the claim, and in another case Partner Support was unable to help me so I just gave up and deleted the entire video.

  29. Okay, YouTube… explain this: I received a copyright claim because I played a piece of copyrighted music even though it should clearly fall under Fair Use.
    1. I played a piece of music the original artist submitted to me himself, for the sole purpose of playing it on a live stream and giving him feedback on the production.
    2. The content was educational in nature and the original artist benefits from it by learning something.
    3. His piece of music wasn't the only piece played and critiqued, there were many more over the course of the stream, meaning the sole purpose of the stream was NOT to spread copyrighted material.
    4. The claimant and the artist being represented are based in the US, so US Fair Use laws apply and thus the above-named things should be taken into account.

    I, of course, disputed the claim since this should be considered Fair Use, the dispute was rejected. I then muted the audio of that song in particular, because live streams and donations are a big part of my channel and I can't risk losing those. However, the fact that the claimant rejected my Fair Use dispute even though it's a clear cut case of Fair Use is what is a problem to begin with and this all ties back to the horrible system YouTube uses where claimants get to decide if my dispute is right or wrong.

    So this video specifically says, that only a judge can decide if something is Fair Use or not. So why then is it, when I file a dispute because I believe the claim is indeed Fair Use, that the claimant gets to decide over that and not a judge as you say? There is no court case until it reaches the point where the damage to my channel is already done! The claimant decides if my dispute is correct or false… If they reject it, I can appeal that decision, however with the risk of putting a copyright strike on my channel, limiting my options for live streaming and receiving donations, which are the two things that keep my channel going. So, not a viable option to risk that. Only if my appeal is rejected again it'll become a court case, but by that time, my channel will already have a strike on it limiting my channel severely. So we can safely say, this is not a viable option for me to take. YouTube keeps specifically stating in this video they can't decide if something is Fair Use or not and that only a judge can, then why is that not happening when I dispute a claim based on Fair Use? You are literally proven yourself wrong with this exact statement in the video.

    When you drag somebody into court, that is a fight between 2 parties and the third party, the judge, is the one to make an unbiased judgment. You are not going to let the defendant or accuser decide on the result of the court case right? So when I receive a copyright claim, why is there no third party to look over these? Why is the claimant the one to decide if I'm right or wrong? That is like having a court case and letting the accuser decide if the defender's arguments are false or correct. YouTube should have a team of copyright specialists looking into every single copyright case as a third party overlooking the process to make sure things go the way they should.

    And then I haven't even talked about the copyright claims that I constantly receive when I'm making music on YouTube, claims on videos where the video itself already disproves the claim itself and therefore should never be appearing on my channel in the first place. The fact that I receive claim after claim on content which is clearly my own is a big sign something is horribly broken when it comes to copyright on YouTube.

    So, instead of ignoring all my tweets, comments, emails and other forms of contact I tried, maybe it would be wise to at least come back to me with an explanation like you would expect in the case of a YouTube "partnership". We creators signed an agreement to be in a partnership with YouTube, yet we creators completely lack the amount of transparency and communication you would expect from a true partnership. So, is it really a partnership or does YouTube simply call it that when it actually isn't?

    As a creator who has spend a lot of time on this platform since day one, I can sadly say that I'm reaching a point where IF a new platform equivalent to YouTube shows up, I would not hesitate one bit to jump ship. And as a creator who has put thousands of hours into his channel, that is a very hard choice to make. However, we've reached a point where things are so broken, YouTube is moving into a direction that is favoring big corporations over the independent creators who have been the reason of the success of YouTube, and I absolutely don't like that.

    If during this entire wall of text I have understood something wrong, then please YouTube respond and explain it to me instead of ignoring me making matters a lot worse. I signed the partnership agreement years ago, but until this date, I have never received any help when it comes to issues with my channel, nor has YouTube ever responded to any of my questions I asked them… Now THAT is a great partnership… not!

  30. Semoga channel saya cepat di monetisasi dan cepat di tinjau amin….
    Makasih banyak informasi nya
    Sungguh bermanfaat 👍

  31. What if i wanted to start a sports channel and use clips like "Top 10 goals" and this type of content? Would this be approved for monetization?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *