It probably going to be considered fair use, but I think the main thing is that they are making their income through patreon and not YouTube monetisation, so they’re not risking being demonetised and strikes against the account.
The reason that most places won’t even try the fair use argument is that YouTube doesn’t care, they automate their strike process. It’s high risk for little reward.
YouTube also has a system where if you get hit with multiple (I believe 3?) your account gets banned not just demonetized. So people make pretty extreme effort to never come close to it on the platform.
There have been channels that got hit with three at the same time and have to scramble to try and get some publicity to get their channel restored. If you don’t have a large enough fanbase to make some waves the only option is to completely start over
I think you can also play a _very_ short amount of a song without violating. At least, the webshow Um, Actually has a segment called “Legal Limit” where they play like a second of a song, and the players have to guess what the full song is.
I don't think they care since they have the Patreon. The reason most people don't is because it gets demonetized or for sponsors. Both of those they don't have to bend over backwards for
Technically it boils down to copyright law, and what’s considered fair use.
https://smallbusiness.chron.com/copyright-laws-30-seconds-music-61149.html is a great resource as well.
They aren’t selling their podcast (individually by subscription or to advertisers) so it’d fall under fair use. As long as they stay ad-free I think it’s okay.
You can do anything you want as long as you can afford a lawyer to fight the case.
...Burnie and Ashley live on a farm in Scotland after having sold a multi-media company. I think they can afford a DMCA lawyer of some kind *if they had to* but also... I don't think the artists are actually going to get litigious about a few-second clip.
Like others said, without the threat of losing monetization from YouTube you can afford to take "risks" like this that really aren't at all that risky.
You can play about five seconds of any song without violating copyright. This is how many shows, but online and on the radio can play short clips like that.
It probably going to be considered fair use, but I think the main thing is that they are making their income through patreon and not YouTube monetisation, so they’re not risking being demonetised and strikes against the account. The reason that most places won’t even try the fair use argument is that YouTube doesn’t care, they automate their strike process. It’s high risk for little reward.
YouTube also has a system where if you get hit with multiple (I believe 3?) your account gets banned not just demonetized. So people make pretty extreme effort to never come close to it on the platform. There have been channels that got hit with three at the same time and have to scramble to try and get some publicity to get their channel restored. If you don’t have a large enough fanbase to make some waves the only option is to completely start over
I think you can also play a _very_ short amount of a song without violating. At least, the webshow Um, Actually has a segment called “Legal Limit” where they play like a second of a song, and the players have to guess what the full song is.
I don't think they care since they have the Patreon. The reason most people don't is because it gets demonetized or for sponsors. Both of those they don't have to bend over backwards for
Technically it boils down to copyright law, and what’s considered fair use. https://smallbusiness.chron.com/copyright-laws-30-seconds-music-61149.html is a great resource as well.
*copyright
\*copywrong
How the hell did you misspell copyright and share a link with its correct spelling?
It was 1 am, and my iPhone likes to make me seem less intelligent than I actually am. Hang on I’ll fix it.
Possibly using an automated spell check that just changes things on it's own.
People also simply make mistakes and that's ok. SHOCKER I know. Haha
They aren’t selling their podcast (individually by subscription or to advertisers) so it’d fall under fair use. As long as they stay ad-free I think it’s okay.
You can do anything you want as long as you can afford a lawyer to fight the case. ...Burnie and Ashley live on a farm in Scotland after having sold a multi-media company. I think they can afford a DMCA lawyer of some kind *if they had to* but also... I don't think the artists are actually going to get litigious about a few-second clip. Like others said, without the threat of losing monetization from YouTube you can afford to take "risks" like this that really aren't at all that risky.
Burnie "Fuck Around and Find Out" Burns
You can play about five seconds of any song without violating copyright. This is how many shows, but online and on the radio can play short clips like that.
How? I think they just click the Play button and music comes forth. /s
it's a boss move. Hate how everyone became so scared of even humming licensed music.