Philosophical Vegan Forum

Today I uploaded onto youtube (not yet released to the public) a new video and I have a question regarding fair use. In the video I include a bunch of clips from The Amazing Atheist old video, and I critique his arguments. When I uploaded the video onto youtube, it identified a portion of my video as copyrighted, and won't let me monterize. My understanding of using copyrighted material on youtube was that if you are critiquing someone's video, you can use portions of it without permission. The Amazing Atheist is part of the Fullscreen Inc. Partnership, and I disputed the claim with them stating fair use. They rejected the claim, and so I am currently uploaded 2 different versions (one omitting the whole section in question) and another version where I removed the audio from his clip. Im hoping one of those two will get approved.

I can appeal the rejection, but i risk having my youtube channel flagged. Anyone know if I should pursue an appeal? Am i in the wrong? Im also concerned, because in the future Id like to make more videos like this, using clips from other people's videos and addressing them. Ive seen many other people, like Thunderf00t, Jacyln Glenn, MKHD, and others use clips from other people's videos and their videos were monterized. Anyone have any incite in this?

It depends on how long the clips are, and more importantly, what they are of.

The most damning question is, "would use of these clips make it unnecessary/redundant to watch his original video?"

That speaks primarily to your liability. But even if it doesn't, it may not be fair use- it still depends on how you used it.

Beyond that, is a question of need: did you NEED to use this content in order to criticize him?
If you can take the audio out of the video and it doesn't make a difference, then you probably didn't need to use it (e.g. just as a background to your voice, it's not technically necessary to criticism- so that's not fair use for your purposes).

The shorter and smaller, and more minimal the amount you take, the more defensible your use. Basically: don't use any more than absolutely necessary. If you don't need to use it to criticize him, don't use it. You can't just use it as a background graphic to your voice- you have to use it to prove he said something specific.


Stanford has a good article on the subject: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fa ... r-factors/

That's about the four legal tests.

With regards to the type of work, TJ's work is kind of two types: informative, and entertainment.
He is making political and philosophical arguments, but at the same time he's also playing a character, clowning around, for entertainment purposes.

If you use portions of his actual arguments- and only the arguments- you should be pretty safe. If you use something that's unrelated to his arguments, and is just him clowning around, then you're in the danger zone for copyright infringement, because that is not necessary for your critical exemption (unless you're literally making an ad hominem argument against him and citing the silly behavior as proof his arguments are wrong- which I'm sure you're not doing).


I would recommend that you use ONLY his audio, or the shortest video+audio clips possible to get the job done to prove he said whatever you're criticizing.
Using the video without audio would speak against your usage as fair use.

If you don't have an overtly hostile relationship with him, I suggest you contact TJ directly and ask him about it. I would be a little bit surprised if he's a copyright whore- he may give you permission.


EDIT: Also, feel free to e-mail me any videos you have questions about, and I can tell you if it's fair use (or probably fair use). But note that I'm not a lawyer, so don't take that as formal legal advice.

TheVeganAtheist wrote: Ive seen many other people, like Thunderf00t, Jacyln Glenn, MKHD, and others use clips from other people's videos and their videos were monterized. Anyone have any incite in this?

Also:

They get flagged all of the time. You have to get used to being flagged and having your videos taken down now and then and then appealing to youtube, I think.

Youtube is going to be more liberal on fair use than the private companies policing the content.

I'll let you know if I find or think of anything else that might be useful.

But e-mail me the video and I'll let you know if I think you're safe on fair use from a legal perspective (bearing in mind I'm not a lawyer, but just a random polymath).

Ive uploaded the video in question. If you watch it all the way through, you will see where the copyright issue came up. I added the subtitles because that section of the video was mostly a scene of eating a burger in a mocking fashion, with a few antagonizing comments at the end.

http://youtu.be/NIacX8rPoKw

TheVeganAtheist wrote:Ive uploaded the video in question. If you watch it all the way through, you will see where the copyright issue came up. I added the subtitles because that section of the video was mostly a scene of eating a burger in a mocking fashion, with a few antagonizing comments at the end.

http://youtu.be/NIacX8rPoKw

It's probably because the clip was pretty long, and didn't contain an actual argument- it was him being a provocative clown.

Bad or antagonizing behavior on his part, and criticism of that behavior (beyond the ideas being presented) would be more of a gray area. Legally, you'd still be in the clear for showing it (he can't sue you), but I don't know what Youtube policies are like, or how flagging would affect your account even if you're in the right there. He has more views, so as corporate policy, Youtube may favor the bigger fish.

brimstoneSalad wrote:

TheVeganAtheist wrote:Ive uploaded the video in question. If you watch it all the way through, you will see where the copyright issue came up. I added the subtitles because that section of the video was mostly a scene of eating a burger in a mocking fashion, with a few antagonizing comments at the end.

http://youtu.be/NIacX8rPoKw

It's probably because the clip was pretty long, and didn't contain an actual argument- it was him being a provocative clown.

Bad or antagonizing behavior on his part, and criticism of that behavior (beyond the ideas being presented) would be more of a grey area. Legally, you'd still be in the clear for showing it (he can't due you), but I don't know what Youtube policies are like, or how flagging would affect your account even if you're in the right there. He has more views, so as corporate policy, Youtube may favor the bigger fish.

Thanks for taking a look. I appreciate your input.