Youtuber Fair Usage Lawsuit Settled

[Douglas Kiesling]

Not directly a weather topic but here is some news for everyone posting photos and videos to social media and not watermarking them obnoxiously.

It has been ruled in the case against "H3H3Productions" by another Youtuber "Matt Hosseinzadeh aka Bold Guy" that as long as the video is being used under the "Fair Use" guide under the copyright law, you can download and re upload and comment on just about any video, photo, news story and so on.

Not that this is any news, this has been what the Fair Use part of the copyright law is about but now there is a new ruling about it.

This video explains everything in more detail and links to everything.

 

[Warren Faidley]

Not directly a weather topic but here is some news for everyone posting photos and videos to social media and not watermarking them obnoxiously.

It has been ruled in the case against "H3H3Productions" by another Youtuber "Matt Hosseinzadeh aka Bold Guy" that as long as the video is being used under the "Fair Use" guide under the copyright law, you can download and re upload and comment on just about any video, photo, news story and so on.

Not that this is any news, this has been what the Fair Use part of the copyright law is about but now there is a new ruling about it.

This video explains everything in more detail and links to everything.

Thanks for posting this. I'll have to read the case. That would be a disaster if it holds ups, but I believe the higher courts would strike it down. It will be interesting to see what would happen if someone used that case law for pirating music. I'll bet the music industry would go ballistic. In reality, I don't care if someone copies video or stills for private use, as who has the desire, time or money to track a million abuses. But when commercial or editorial interests do it, that's worth pursuing. As noted, place a big transparent watermark across the entire clip making it worthless for commercial pirating and cut the quality / size enough so it's worthless for ripping off.

 

[Bill Hark]

Doug, thank you for posting. I hope this doesn't hold up but definitely more incentive to aggressively watermark storm video uploaded to YouTube and similar platforms.

Bill

 

[Billy Faletti]

In this situation, it's a pretty cut and dry issue of fair use. It wasn't just a reupload with some trivial commentary, it was a pretty thorough critique of said video. Purely reuploaded storm chaser video with no meaningful transformation wouldn't fall under the same category given the ruling.

It's actually a pretty big win for many who make a living off of critiquing content, as copyright holders have often claimed videos that legitimately fell under fair use, taking away revenue from creators who are following fair use guidelines. There are certainly creators who get away with ripping off others' content, but h3h3productions is not one of them.

 

[Dan Robinson]

It's debatable - some cases like this are appealed to a higher court and then won. The lower courts can vary greatly on how they interpret fair use. Richard Prince (one of the most egregious "infringement-claimed-as-fair-use" cases) won his low-level court case, but it is being appealed, and he is expected to lose. He's the guy who took people's instagram photos, simply added a caption, then sold them as art pieces for $90k and up each.

Just about every time a chaser licenses footage, it is for some type of educational/documentary/news reporting use akin to what any of the Youtubers claim to be doing. But, the traditional licensees have always paid. The Youtubers are walking a fine line because a.) many times they are using a LOT of the original footage and b.) their video is monetized, directly earning revenue sometimes in competition to the original. Those also happen to be three of the four criteria used to determine fair use in the courts (is the work commercial; does it harm the market for the original; how much of the original footage is used).

I think this case will be appealed (at least I would hope). So many modern Youtubers have such a liberal view of copyright law that anything except just a straight re-upload is seen as fair use. If they got their way and TV/film/documentary producers started acting the same way, no one would ever have to license footage again for anything, they'd just take it for free without asking the second we posted it.

 

[Douglas Kiesling]

I'm not sure this will be appealed as fair use does cover commentary and discussion about a video as long as the person doing the review is in fact saying where the footage is from and crediting the source. The quick review of the lawsuit that was brought looked more like the guy was saying he was (butt) hurt due to the usage of his video by another youtube channel that was making fun of them which if you watch the original video, they were actually saying the guy should have his own show on a major channel.

That case did fall under fair use and sounded like a couple of well paid youtubers going after each other and only the lawyers made money.

Just like a local TV station crediting video from a football game in their sports part of the news. If a NBC station credits CBS Sports who owns the broadcast rights and shows clips of the game in their news broadcast but screen credits CBS Sports, that would fall under fair use. Just like if a TV network or local station credits Youtube for using your video under the youtube terms of service, technically it is fair use.

Hence, watermark the heck out of your videos.

https://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms
6. Your Content and Conduct
For clarity, you retain all of your ownership rights in your Content. However, by submitting Content to YouTube, you hereby grant YouTube a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the Content in connection with the Service and YouTube's (and its successors' and affiliates') business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Service (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels. You also hereby grant each user of the Service a non-exclusive license to access your Content through the Service, and to use, reproduce, distribute, display and perform such Content as permitted through the functionality of the Service and under these Terms of Service. The above licenses granted by you in video Content you submit to the Service terminate within a commercially reasonable time after you remove or delete your videos from the Service. You understand and agree, however, that YouTube may retain, but not display, distribute, or perform, server copies of your videos that have been removed or deleted. The above licenses granted by you in user comments you submit are perpetual and irrevocable.

 

[Douglas Kiesling]

Now before I could even finish up the first reply, looks like another Youtube Lawsuit is in the works.