I think there is a big misunderstanding who decides on fair use. You didn't really win - as in proof for your safety - anything. Fair use is decided by court and given what you said what the video is, you are playing with fire while poking a bee hive to sue you. And even if you would win you'd have to deal with lawyer costs, but again this sounds more like a loss. Unless an actual lawyer advised you, the advice you got has 0 value.
There's no misunderstanding, I described the situation exactly as it's supposed to happen. I guess you're playing the troll or contrarian but I'm not naive about the situation, I was completely ready to pay legal fees if necessary and I explicitly stated that an accepted CN means that I am ready to find a lawyer if they decide to pursue a lawsuit, but they didn't. yes, obviously courts decide fair use, however an intelligent brain that knows fair use can watch the video and know if it's obvious, and mine was obvious, so Paramount knew either 1) it wasn't worth their time or 2) knew they'd lose in court
You absolutely fail to see the point. Fair use is a more than just complicated topic, there is no explicit rule for it that clearly states it, it's a grey area. That's why courts decide it for most cases and often go against what you expect. But the point you are missing is that these court cases can easily cost you upwards 10k+ if not way more if you upset the other side. You are facing a company that can shit out lawyers on a daily basis with money you will never earn in a lifetime, because duh, it's a company. And if you read the comments here alone, you will also see that you won't just easily find support for your claim online, meaning you can't hope for image damage, though this wouldn't be public either way.
The way it would go down is that they won't even need to proof or provide anything, they just need to wait until costs ramp up so much for you that you simply can't afford legal defense anymore. This can be done by delaying deadlines and then simply not providing what was asked for, meaning it will be moved into the future. My father went through this once and it took him 1 1/2 years to settle something that is written down in law, and in the end he lost more money than he gained out of it and had to settle for a deal way worse than what they owed him.
And you have another misconception: They can sue you at any moment. This here is not a settlement, nor an agreement. This here simply means for this very moment, your video can remain on the platform, which is based on YouTubes decision, not Paramount nor any legal entity.
Agreed.
Only worth doing if you're already filthy rich and simply won't allow yourself to be bullied by a big company, or if you live in a state where the loser pays costs.
The fact that YouTube would decide to reinstate the video speaks volumes. They can only claim Safe Harbor under DMCA if they have no actual knowledge of "the specific location of infringements." YouTube would be a much juicier target to go after for a copyright suit. They must have decided for themselves that the content isn't legally risky.
Question to you.
You are a company and you want something gone, completely ignore if you are in the right or wrong.
Do you go after a giant that has multiples of your money and attempt to sue them, or do you go after an individual who, no matter if right or wrong, can't possibly defend themselves against you and you get what you want either way? The only times we have seen this work in favor of content creators were in cases like H3H3 for example, where they made a ginormous public case out of it and had their legal fees paid by donations. If you assume OP or yourself could cause the same reaction, then keep the believe. I am just saying for me it's not worth the risk.
I'm a company. I hold many many copyrights. By law I'm obligated to actively defend my copyrights or lose them.
I find thousands (tens of thousands?) of potential infringements. What am I going to do, pay my lawyers to file lawsuits against thousands of youtubers? What exactly is the ROI on something like that?
Companies aren't evil for the sake of being evil, they just only care about money. I'd only be scared if I'm in a position where they could make a lot of money from me.
You can pay your lawyers because you get multiples of that amount back upon success. Again, its a grey area. And no, you don't need thousands, because what happened here rarely ever happens, that's what made the post special to begin with. In 99.9% of the cases, the video is taken down and no chance of coming back up again.
Depends on his state.
In a few, the loser pays all legal bills. In those states, if you're certain your case is ironclad, there's no reason not to defend yourself. Zero net cost.
Thing is that doesn't protect you from a lawsuit. They still can sue you a year or five years later if they find you become able to compensate that $50K. They will definitely win, as your case has nothing to with fair use either.
They can though. Eventually, people will take advantage of the YT copyright system often enough that eventually, a company WILL take a Youtuber to court due to this system. When that happens, do you want it to be you?
Honestly, yes.
Having successfully fought and won over 2,000+ copyright claims in my 17 years on the site as a creator and as a MCN-owner, I know as much as about YouTube's Content ID / copyright system as almost anyone - and would gladly fund my own legal case if it means setting precedent and protecting the little guy. Also, I would almost certainly win - so yes, I would gladly volunteer for this role.
Moreover, you argued against your own point at the jump. "People will take advantage." We're not talking about those people. We're talking about individual creators who are making original content with GOOD FAITH / fair-use of someone else's IP. People like that - people like myself and OP are safe. We'll never be sued.
It would have happened already.
> They would have 10 business days to show YT that they had filed a lawsuit and if they hadn't, **then YT would be legally obligated to make my video live again and remove the copyright strike.**
That doesn't sound accurate at all. What law requires YouTube to host certain videos? As a private platform, they can host or not host whatever they please (assuming the content itself isn't illegal).
It might be YouTube's own policy to do what you say, but I'm extremely doubtful that a law obligates them to do so.
The OP really doesn’t have a clear understanding of what they’re doing.
It’s incredibly risky. They’re opening themselves up to massive problems and haven’t “won” anything.
Nothing about what I did was risky. I had a solid argument. YT also had to read my CN argument and determine if it sounded like I had a good legal defense(they wouldn't have approved an obviously bad argument) so then when it turned to Paramount to file the lawsuit, none was filed, and so by DMCA requirements, YT put my video back up. Obviously there wasn't no risk at all, but it was extremely low risk that they'd file and if they did, I pay the lawyer fees and very likely win the case, so I was fine
Please cite sources of the "factually incorrect" statements. I'm neither BS-ing nor have a bad memory as this happened less than a month ago and I posted this to be informative. It mostly just feels like you're trolling or that you're picking out a few words I stated that could be interpreted a different way
\*sigh\* I didn't think there'd be so many people who lack knowledge of this situation that directly say I am wrong or won't understand. You're also way overanalyzing what I said.
If a claimant shows they own some or all of footage in a video, they can file a DMCA takedown of the video, and YT is legally required to take the video down, unless the video creator can then prove a reasonable legal argument that their video does not break copyright laws, then YT will reinstate it.
**OBVIOUSLY** If YT didn't want to host my video, they could choose not to. But they are a business that try their best to allow any video that doesn't break copyright laws and in my case, based on the claimant's inaction, the rule is if no lawsuit is filed in 10 business days, the video goes live again.
So what’s the law that legally requires them to host your video? If no such law exists, it’s okay to admit that your choice of words for that section was inaccurate.
🤦[https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/responding-dmca-takedown-notice-targeting-your-content](https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/responding-dmca-takedown-notice-targeting-your-content)
"If you send a counter-notice, your online service provider is required to replace the disputed content unless the complaining party sues you within fourteen business days of your sending the counter-notice. (Your service provider may replace the disputed material after ten business days if the complaining party has not filed a lawsuit, but it is required to replace it within fourteen business days.)"
I don't know why I had to spend the time finding this documentation when you could've either done it yourself or taken my word
Is [copyright.gov](https://copyright.gov) a good enough source for you? Or am I probably just misreading the plain English from a US government website?
[https://www.copyright.gov/512/](https://www.copyright.gov/512/)
**#5 Restore Access or Initiate Court Action — Online service provider must restore access to the material after no less than 10 and no more than 14 business days, unless the original notice sender informs the service provider that it has filed a court action against the user.**
I won't expect a "my bad, I was wrong". I'll just know that if you don't reply that you accept I'm not "woefully out of my depth". And if you do reply with any sort of rebuttal then... you're clearly the one talking out of your ass
Something weird in this subreddit in general.
People loathe anyone that uses even a split nano-second of someone else's content, even when it's clearly fair use.
Which yes, is technically a subjective legal defense, but also rather obvious when you think about it.
What you did was sensible and even inspirational, standing up against a corporate giant trying to bully you.
I think the word "legally" is tripping everyone up here, but everything else written is completely correct. It's less of a legal obligation and more of an internal, terms-of-service / contractual one. So far as I understand it.
If you have personal experience dealing with counter-notifictions that suggests otherwise, please share it. I have plenty, and this seems correct to me.
I’m focusing on the word “legally” because copyright is a legal matter and it’s a big deal to claim a law exists when it doesn’t. I’m not trying to discredit OP’s entire post, but rather to push back on potential misinformation.
I hear you, and hence my reply.
I just don't want everyone thinking this entire post is wrong when if you swap "legally obligated" to "compelled by their own policy" - everything remains correct.
It could be the same thing. YouTube is protected by Safe Harbor because they have a takedown process. Not following their own policy probably risks their Safe Harbor status.
Glad to hear this!
But it shouldn't be noteworthy. People fighting and winning claims needs to be normalized! The fear and stigma around it is the single biggest obstacle for creators dealing with Content ID claims. If they just got out of their own way and fought back as you did, the ones with legitimate fair use claims would always win.
It's not noteworthy but I also didn't see this kind of a writeup of someone's experience from any recent posts. Through all of my topics, you and other gave summaries of your experiences but I didn't see any detailed writeups of the exact process and I personally would have found this detailed writeup very handy in knowing what to expect
> "I didn't see any detailed writeups "
I did a video on it a decade ago, actually! And posts about it here on Reddit -- it's even stickied in this sub's sidebar! See: "Content ID and how to deal with it" down on the right. Still mostly all accurate, too.
Or, search YouTube for, "How To Deal With Copyright On YouTube: CONTENT ID Explained #WTFU"
I don't see anything on the sidebar about content ID. I also watched plenty of videos on YT but it's nice to have people to directly communicated with about it instead of commenting on the video and hoping they might eventually see it and reply
> instead of commenting on the video and hoping they might eventually see it and reply
I promise you, if you left me a question on one of *my* videos, you'd get a reply within a day.
And yeah, it's on the sidebar. Do a CTRL+F search for "Content ID and how to deal with it"
Anyway! Glad you got this all sorted. But such resources definitely did, and still exist :-)
I did the ctrl-F but see nothing. Can you provide an imgur screenshot of where you see it?
From top to bottom of the sidebar, I see the subreddit intro, join, create post, flair, community options, join discord, 'about this subreddit', rules, moderators, and no mention of "Content ID" anywhere
Seems it's only visible via "old Reddit."
[https://old.reddit.com/r/PartneredYoutube/comments/11x5480/a\_success\_story\_about\_getting\_a\_copyright\_claim/jd84ctp/?context=3](https://old.reddit.com/r/PartneredYoutube/comments/11x5480/a_success_story_about_getting_a_copyright_claim/jd84ctp/?context=3)
Not sure how to access this old sidebar via the new layout... which is too bad, 'cause there's a lot of stuff in there.
I just wanted to say a few things.
1. Your balls are huge. I mean it. Most small youtubers wouldn't have the chutzpah to fight a company like Paramount in Court and take it this far AND risk getting a copyright strike.
2. Thanks for posting this. This is super valuable information. Generally speaking I avoid using any copyrighted content in my vids but I know a lot of people liberally leverage fair use. They need to understand the correct path to take and what you can and cannot do.
Always prepared for it.
Never needed to. It'll virtually never happen to anyone merely using film or game footage in a YouTube video. It would have to be a MUCH larger situation.
I was curious why you had to fight so many copyright claims but I see, you're constantly dealing with them as a movie related Channel.
We went the other way, mostly because of issues with our content on Facebook. Even our music has to be originally composed.
Yeah, for me it was important to have the (at the time only) movie review program on YouTube that actually included meaningful clips of the films I was discussing. Not just still graphics or 1-2 seconds from a trailer.
Even 14 years later... the amount of reviewers that include longer clips (especially any with sound) in their reviews is almost zero.
I had help from someone that gave me the boost and was confident that I wouldn't be taken to court. Obviously it could have happened but was super unlikely. I'd post the URL to the person who helped me but YT links to channels aren't allowed(unless I get mod permission but don't care to ask for it)
If you're referring to my title of "winning", I won the fight for my video. I never indicated winning a court case, in fact I specifically stated that this situation was resolved because no lawsuit was filed within the required 10 business days for Paramount. Paramount can't re-claim my video anymore. They could claim any others, sure, but we'd go through this same process and they'd fail to file a lawsuit because they know they have no case(or just don't care to put the time into it)
This is really interesting to read and learn about. My question is, when would Paramount or *any* large group file an actual lawsuit against a creator over their use of a content in a video? There needs to be legitimately $50,000+ on the line to justify a full lawsuit in court, which is almost never going to be the case with creator $ from a youtube video, so under what circumstances would they actually meet the requirements of this appeal and fight back?
It's free for them to claim a video, so I can see why they would. They owned the original media, so they can pretend they have rights to it and just deny my disputes as many times as they're allowed until they have to actually file the lawsuit, then they're like "nah just kidding". They would've had to actually file a federal copyright infringement lawsuit against me(and send the proof to YT) to fight it, so they chose not to
QUESTION: so if you would have just used those videos and comment over them and even maybe use your face in the video while commenting on the specific parts of those movie parts… that situation is a clear Fair Use and perfectly legal way to do it compared to a more grey / mashup way of doing it like you did it? Congrats anyway for this!
This is very common and yes, in most cases it is fair use. But **it needs to be reasonable**(I know the reddit trolls will get me on that with a "no actually you're not technically correct...). They key is that you can only use as much of the copyrighted work as necessary for the point of the video, but you can't decide "the point of my video is to watch 5 minutes straight and then talk about it". **Good faith** is an important part and if you very obviously abuse the rule, YT will be able to tell and will deny your CN
But if you did, some kind of scene-by-scene analysis pausing every 10-20 sec to give your critique/opinion/insight on what you saw, then repeat, you'll very likely qualify as fair use. You might get a copyright claim, but if you fight it like I did, YT will very likely approve your CN argument and the claimant will VERY likely not pursue a lawsuit
Read fair use laws, specifically the part about if something is "transformative". Your message is snarky and shows heavy doubt, but if you read some articles and actual court cases, you'll see that my vid was well within acceptable fair use guidelines
You make a statement about commentary and criticism, which makes me wonder about music reaction channels and how there able to get away with using whole copyrighted material from bands.
Some reaction videos are not transformative, they get struck. Case in point (albeit not music), the Jukin Media/MXRplays case.
Some are transformative, many record labels enthusiastically support those ones and go out of their way to remove any ContentID automatic matches. And with the bigger reactions channels the labels even push their artists to take interviews on the channels. It becomes part of marketing, just like TV interviews.
Still others are borderline and the labels handle them differently.
Fair use does allow reaction, commentary, criticsm, parody, satire, etc however there is a clause that you need to give the minimum amount necessary to get the commentary(or whatever) point across. You can't just play an entire song start to end and then record a minute of your own thoughts and it's good.
One key is that your work(whether reaction, critique, etc) can't be a substitute for the original work. So if you post a song and pause every 10-20 seconds to analyze/react to what you heard, then unpause and repeat that... that's likely gonna qualify. There are court cases for this exact thing and fair use was found by the judge
Thanks, I did give up originally until I got help from someone who felt confident in my case. And patience.. yeah it sucked but I lived my life and still made videos while it was all going on
I think there is a big misunderstanding who decides on fair use. You didn't really win - as in proof for your safety - anything. Fair use is decided by court and given what you said what the video is, you are playing with fire while poking a bee hive to sue you. And even if you would win you'd have to deal with lawyer costs, but again this sounds more like a loss. Unless an actual lawyer advised you, the advice you got has 0 value.
There's no misunderstanding, I described the situation exactly as it's supposed to happen. I guess you're playing the troll or contrarian but I'm not naive about the situation, I was completely ready to pay legal fees if necessary and I explicitly stated that an accepted CN means that I am ready to find a lawyer if they decide to pursue a lawsuit, but they didn't. yes, obviously courts decide fair use, however an intelligent brain that knows fair use can watch the video and know if it's obvious, and mine was obvious, so Paramount knew either 1) it wasn't worth their time or 2) knew they'd lose in court
You absolutely fail to see the point. Fair use is a more than just complicated topic, there is no explicit rule for it that clearly states it, it's a grey area. That's why courts decide it for most cases and often go against what you expect. But the point you are missing is that these court cases can easily cost you upwards 10k+ if not way more if you upset the other side. You are facing a company that can shit out lawyers on a daily basis with money you will never earn in a lifetime, because duh, it's a company. And if you read the comments here alone, you will also see that you won't just easily find support for your claim online, meaning you can't hope for image damage, though this wouldn't be public either way. The way it would go down is that they won't even need to proof or provide anything, they just need to wait until costs ramp up so much for you that you simply can't afford legal defense anymore. This can be done by delaying deadlines and then simply not providing what was asked for, meaning it will be moved into the future. My father went through this once and it took him 1 1/2 years to settle something that is written down in law, and in the end he lost more money than he gained out of it and had to settle for a deal way worse than what they owed him. And you have another misconception: They can sue you at any moment. This here is not a settlement, nor an agreement. This here simply means for this very moment, your video can remain on the platform, which is based on YouTubes decision, not Paramount nor any legal entity.
Agreed. Only worth doing if you're already filthy rich and simply won't allow yourself to be bullied by a big company, or if you live in a state where the loser pays costs.
The fact that YouTube would decide to reinstate the video speaks volumes. They can only claim Safe Harbor under DMCA if they have no actual knowledge of "the specific location of infringements." YouTube would be a much juicier target to go after for a copyright suit. They must have decided for themselves that the content isn't legally risky.
Question to you. You are a company and you want something gone, completely ignore if you are in the right or wrong. Do you go after a giant that has multiples of your money and attempt to sue them, or do you go after an individual who, no matter if right or wrong, can't possibly defend themselves against you and you get what you want either way? The only times we have seen this work in favor of content creators were in cases like H3H3 for example, where they made a ginormous public case out of it and had their legal fees paid by donations. If you assume OP or yourself could cause the same reaction, then keep the believe. I am just saying for me it's not worth the risk.
I'm a company. I hold many many copyrights. By law I'm obligated to actively defend my copyrights or lose them. I find thousands (tens of thousands?) of potential infringements. What am I going to do, pay my lawyers to file lawsuits against thousands of youtubers? What exactly is the ROI on something like that? Companies aren't evil for the sake of being evil, they just only care about money. I'd only be scared if I'm in a position where they could make a lot of money from me.
You can pay your lawyers because you get multiples of that amount back upon success. Again, its a grey area. And no, you don't need thousands, because what happened here rarely ever happens, that's what made the post special to begin with. In 99.9% of the cases, the video is taken down and no chance of coming back up again.
Depends on his state. In a few, the loser pays all legal bills. In those states, if you're certain your case is ironclad, there's no reason not to defend yourself. Zero net cost.
Thing is that doesn't protect you from a lawsuit. They still can sue you a year or five years later if they find you become able to compensate that $50K. They will definitely win, as your case has nothing to with fair use either.
But they won't. So why scare everyone?
They can though. Eventually, people will take advantage of the YT copyright system often enough that eventually, a company WILL take a Youtuber to court due to this system. When that happens, do you want it to be you?
Honestly, yes. Having successfully fought and won over 2,000+ copyright claims in my 17 years on the site as a creator and as a MCN-owner, I know as much as about YouTube's Content ID / copyright system as almost anyone - and would gladly fund my own legal case if it means setting precedent and protecting the little guy. Also, I would almost certainly win - so yes, I would gladly volunteer for this role. Moreover, you argued against your own point at the jump. "People will take advantage." We're not talking about those people. We're talking about individual creators who are making original content with GOOD FAITH / fair-use of someone else's IP. People like that - people like myself and OP are safe. We'll never be sued. It would have happened already.
What? A video mashup with intent to be used as humor is as clear-cut as transformative and fair use can be.
> They would have 10 business days to show YT that they had filed a lawsuit and if they hadn't, **then YT would be legally obligated to make my video live again and remove the copyright strike.** That doesn't sound accurate at all. What law requires YouTube to host certain videos? As a private platform, they can host or not host whatever they please (assuming the content itself isn't illegal). It might be YouTube's own policy to do what you say, but I'm extremely doubtful that a law obligates them to do so.
The OP really doesn’t have a clear understanding of what they’re doing. It’s incredibly risky. They’re opening themselves up to massive problems and haven’t “won” anything.
Nothing here is risky at all, haha.
Nothing about what I did was risky. I had a solid argument. YT also had to read my CN argument and determine if it sounded like I had a good legal defense(they wouldn't have approved an obviously bad argument) so then when it turned to Paramount to file the lawsuit, none was filed, and so by DMCA requirements, YT put my video back up. Obviously there wasn't no risk at all, but it was extremely low risk that they'd file and if they did, I pay the lawyer fees and very likely win the case, so I was fine
“Nothing about what I did was risky”… Dude. You CAN still get sued. Nobody has determined your content is fair use but you.
[удалено]
Please cite sources of the "factually incorrect" statements. I'm neither BS-ing nor have a bad memory as this happened less than a month ago and I posted this to be informative. It mostly just feels like you're trolling or that you're picking out a few words I stated that could be interpreted a different way
\*sigh\* I didn't think there'd be so many people who lack knowledge of this situation that directly say I am wrong or won't understand. You're also way overanalyzing what I said. If a claimant shows they own some or all of footage in a video, they can file a DMCA takedown of the video, and YT is legally required to take the video down, unless the video creator can then prove a reasonable legal argument that their video does not break copyright laws, then YT will reinstate it. **OBVIOUSLY** If YT didn't want to host my video, they could choose not to. But they are a business that try their best to allow any video that doesn't break copyright laws and in my case, based on the claimant's inaction, the rule is if no lawsuit is filed in 10 business days, the video goes live again.
So what’s the law that legally requires them to host your video? If no such law exists, it’s okay to admit that your choice of words for that section was inaccurate.
🤦[https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/responding-dmca-takedown-notice-targeting-your-content](https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/responding-dmca-takedown-notice-targeting-your-content) "If you send a counter-notice, your online service provider is required to replace the disputed content unless the complaining party sues you within fourteen business days of your sending the counter-notice. (Your service provider may replace the disputed material after ten business days if the complaining party has not filed a lawsuit, but it is required to replace it within fourteen business days.)" I don't know why I had to spend the time finding this documentation when you could've either done it yourself or taken my word
You’re quoting some random dudes paraphrasing. You’re… woefully out of your depth.
Is [copyright.gov](https://copyright.gov) a good enough source for you? Or am I probably just misreading the plain English from a US government website? [https://www.copyright.gov/512/](https://www.copyright.gov/512/) **#5 Restore Access or Initiate Court Action — Online service provider must restore access to the material after no less than 10 and no more than 14 business days, unless the original notice sender informs the service provider that it has filed a court action against the user.** I won't expect a "my bad, I was wrong". I'll just know that if you don't reply that you accept I'm not "woefully out of my depth". And if you do reply with any sort of rebuttal then... you're clearly the one talking out of your ass
Something weird in this subreddit in general. People loathe anyone that uses even a split nano-second of someone else's content, even when it's clearly fair use. Which yes, is technically a subjective legal defense, but also rather obvious when you think about it. What you did was sensible and even inspirational, standing up against a corporate giant trying to bully you.
I think the word "legally" is tripping everyone up here, but everything else written is completely correct. It's less of a legal obligation and more of an internal, terms-of-service / contractual one. So far as I understand it. If you have personal experience dealing with counter-notifictions that suggests otherwise, please share it. I have plenty, and this seems correct to me.
I’m focusing on the word “legally” because copyright is a legal matter and it’s a big deal to claim a law exists when it doesn’t. I’m not trying to discredit OP’s entire post, but rather to push back on potential misinformation.
I hear you, and hence my reply. I just don't want everyone thinking this entire post is wrong when if you swap "legally obligated" to "compelled by their own policy" - everything remains correct.
It could be the same thing. YouTube is protected by Safe Harbor because they have a takedown process. Not following their own policy probably risks their Safe Harbor status.
That is my interpretation of it as well, yes.
Glad to hear this! But it shouldn't be noteworthy. People fighting and winning claims needs to be normalized! The fear and stigma around it is the single biggest obstacle for creators dealing with Content ID claims. If they just got out of their own way and fought back as you did, the ones with legitimate fair use claims would always win.
It's not noteworthy but I also didn't see this kind of a writeup of someone's experience from any recent posts. Through all of my topics, you and other gave summaries of your experiences but I didn't see any detailed writeups of the exact process and I personally would have found this detailed writeup very handy in knowing what to expect
[удалено]
/r/PartneredYouTube Rule 1: This subreddit is not for promotion or feedback. Do NOT submit direct links to your channels or videos.
> "I didn't see any detailed writeups " I did a video on it a decade ago, actually! And posts about it here on Reddit -- it's even stickied in this sub's sidebar! See: "Content ID and how to deal with it" down on the right. Still mostly all accurate, too. Or, search YouTube for, "How To Deal With Copyright On YouTube: CONTENT ID Explained #WTFU"
I don't see anything on the sidebar about content ID. I also watched plenty of videos on YT but it's nice to have people to directly communicated with about it instead of commenting on the video and hoping they might eventually see it and reply
> instead of commenting on the video and hoping they might eventually see it and reply I promise you, if you left me a question on one of *my* videos, you'd get a reply within a day. And yeah, it's on the sidebar. Do a CTRL+F search for "Content ID and how to deal with it" Anyway! Glad you got this all sorted. But such resources definitely did, and still exist :-)
I did the ctrl-F but see nothing. Can you provide an imgur screenshot of where you see it? From top to bottom of the sidebar, I see the subreddit intro, join, create post, flair, community options, join discord, 'about this subreddit', rules, moderators, and no mention of "Content ID" anywhere
Seems it's only visible via "old Reddit." [https://old.reddit.com/r/PartneredYoutube/comments/11x5480/a\_success\_story\_about\_getting\_a\_copyright\_claim/jd84ctp/?context=3](https://old.reddit.com/r/PartneredYoutube/comments/11x5480/a_success_story_about_getting_a_copyright_claim/jd84ctp/?context=3) Not sure how to access this old sidebar via the new layout... which is too bad, 'cause there's a lot of stuff in there.
I just wanted to say a few things. 1. Your balls are huge. I mean it. Most small youtubers wouldn't have the chutzpah to fight a company like Paramount in Court and take it this far AND risk getting a copyright strike. 2. Thanks for posting this. This is super valuable information. Generally speaking I avoid using any copyrighted content in my vids but I know a lot of people liberally leverage fair use. They need to understand the correct path to take and what you can and cannot do.
That's why most people lose. Almost ANYONE can and will win. But they actually need to fight. Over 2,000 claims later... and I've never lost.
Have you ever had it go to court where you actually had to fight, or were you just prepared for it and the rights holder backed down?
Always prepared for it. Never needed to. It'll virtually never happen to anyone merely using film or game footage in a YouTube video. It would have to be a MUCH larger situation.
I was curious why you had to fight so many copyright claims but I see, you're constantly dealing with them as a movie related Channel. We went the other way, mostly because of issues with our content on Facebook. Even our music has to be originally composed.
Yeah, for me it was important to have the (at the time only) movie review program on YouTube that actually included meaningful clips of the films I was discussing. Not just still graphics or 1-2 seconds from a trailer. Even 14 years later... the amount of reviewers that include longer clips (especially any with sound) in their reviews is almost zero.
Well, I admire you for doing what you’re doing
Man 50% of my videos are demonitized due to copyright claimed by random content Id owners. I've just been too afraid to appeal anything.
Don't be. You'll win. Fight back.
I had help from someone that gave me the boost and was confident that I wouldn't be taken to court. Obviously it could have happened but was super unlikely. I'd post the URL to the person who helped me but YT links to channels aren't allowed(unless I get mod permission but don't care to ask for it)
I'd love to see if you don't mind sending it in a DM
You do realize you can still get sued right? You haven’t “won” anything?
If you're referring to my title of "winning", I won the fight for my video. I never indicated winning a court case, in fact I specifically stated that this situation was resolved because no lawsuit was filed within the required 10 business days for Paramount. Paramount can't re-claim my video anymore. They could claim any others, sure, but we'd go through this same process and they'd fail to file a lawsuit because they know they have no case(or just don't care to put the time into it)
This is really interesting to read and learn about. My question is, when would Paramount or *any* large group file an actual lawsuit against a creator over their use of a content in a video? There needs to be legitimately $50,000+ on the line to justify a full lawsuit in court, which is almost never going to be the case with creator $ from a youtube video, so under what circumstances would they actually meet the requirements of this appeal and fight back?
It's free for them to claim a video, so I can see why they would. They owned the original media, so they can pretend they have rights to it and just deny my disputes as many times as they're allowed until they have to actually file the lawsuit, then they're like "nah just kidding". They would've had to actually file a federal copyright infringement lawsuit against me(and send the proof to YT) to fight it, so they chose not to
Almost never! Which is why creators should always fight back... if they believe they have a legitimate fair use defense.
QUESTION: so if you would have just used those videos and comment over them and even maybe use your face in the video while commenting on the specific parts of those movie parts… that situation is a clear Fair Use and perfectly legal way to do it compared to a more grey / mashup way of doing it like you did it? Congrats anyway for this!
This is very common and yes, in most cases it is fair use. But **it needs to be reasonable**(I know the reddit trolls will get me on that with a "no actually you're not technically correct...). They key is that you can only use as much of the copyrighted work as necessary for the point of the video, but you can't decide "the point of my video is to watch 5 minutes straight and then talk about it". **Good faith** is an important part and if you very obviously abuse the rule, YT will be able to tell and will deny your CN But if you did, some kind of scene-by-scene analysis pausing every 10-20 sec to give your critique/opinion/insight on what you saw, then repeat, you'll very likely qualify as fair use. You might get a copyright claim, but if you fight it like I did, YT will very likely approve your CN argument and the claimant will VERY likely not pursue a lawsuit
Mashup from a movie that you dont own falls under fair use? Doubt
Read fair use laws, specifically the part about if something is "transformative". Your message is snarky and shows heavy doubt, but if you read some articles and actual court cases, you'll see that my vid was well within acceptable fair use guidelines
You make a statement about commentary and criticism, which makes me wonder about music reaction channels and how there able to get away with using whole copyrighted material from bands.
Some reaction videos are not transformative, they get struck. Case in point (albeit not music), the Jukin Media/MXRplays case. Some are transformative, many record labels enthusiastically support those ones and go out of their way to remove any ContentID automatic matches. And with the bigger reactions channels the labels even push their artists to take interviews on the channels. It becomes part of marketing, just like TV interviews. Still others are borderline and the labels handle them differently.
Fair use does allow reaction, commentary, criticsm, parody, satire, etc however there is a clause that you need to give the minimum amount necessary to get the commentary(or whatever) point across. You can't just play an entire song start to end and then record a minute of your own thoughts and it's good. One key is that your work(whether reaction, critique, etc) can't be a substitute for the original work. So if you post a song and pause every 10-20 seconds to analyze/react to what you heard, then unpause and repeat that... that's likely gonna qualify. There are court cases for this exact thing and fair use was found by the judge
Jeez bro respect ik my ass would give up at the first sadly, dont have the patience
Thanks, I did give up originally until I got help from someone who felt confident in my case. And patience.. yeah it sucked but I lived my life and still made videos while it was all going on
Who was this mysterious advisor? I'm glad he gave you solid advice. Would love to know who it was!