Someone stole your footage from the Monolith Tour

[shinydiol]

Stumbled on this video on Reddit and though it was odd that they were showing multiple clips from Monolith in a video about EA and thought the footage looked familiar and remembered it was from when Linus did a studio tour at Monolith. The video pretty much just ripped the Linus video and used it as b-roll.

 

[TetraSky]

Looks and smells like fair use to me.

You're allowed to take existing footage as long as you transform it into your own work.

This video doesn't revolve around LTT's footage, it's only there to illustrate their completely subject in a transformative matter.

[CerealExperimentsLain]

3 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

Looks and smells like fair use to me.

You're allowed to take existing footage as long as you transform it into your own work.

This video doesn't revolve around LTT's footage, it's only there to illustrate their completely subject in a transformative matter.

Uhh, no, this is just taking somebody elses B-roll and using it as your own B-roll.  It's not transformative at all.

[wanderingfool2]

10 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

Looks and smells like fair use to me.

You're allowed to take existing footage as long as you transform it into your own work.

This video doesn't revolve around LTT's footage, it's only there to illustrate their completely subject in a transformative matter.

It is in no way fair use.  It's not really transformative, but even if it fails in the other factors of fair use.

 

With fair use you need to try to use try using the minimal amount to convey your point.  They also would have to be talking in regards to the footage, and not using it as a fancy graphic to play in the background.

 

Overall it's copyright infringement, but not sure if LMG would bother pursuing anything though.

[LogicalDrm]

LMG could probably do ID claim. But since it's not whole video reupload, it's just the other channel being lazy (not crediting source). Sad but truth, 50% of any media is using someone else's work without giving credit, or even making it their own. There are whole news sites that just copy-paste from other sites.

[TetraSky]

1 hour ago, CerealExperimentsLain said:

Uhh, no, this is just taking somebody elses B-roll and using it as your own B-roll.  It's not transformative at all.

1 hour ago, wanderingfool2 said:

It is in no way fair use.  It's not really transformative, but even if it fails in the other factors of fair use.

 

With fair use you need to try to use try using the minimal amount to convey your point.  They also would have to be talking in regards to the footage, and not using it as a fancy graphic to play in the background.

 

Overall it's copyright infringement, but not sure if LMG would bother pursuing anything though.

Rewatching the video more carefully, it looks to me they only used a handful of seconds at a time, I counted less than 20 seconds total before I got bored. On a 10 minutes video. So I'm guessing it might be something like 30s tops. Unless the entire thing is stolen straight from the LTT video and I'm just blind. Which is entirely possible.

This footage is not just taken wholesale in it's entirety, it's cut into parts here and thee. You have 1s there, 3s there, another 2s later... and not even in the same order as the LTT video. Even the length of the b-roll used is cut short at times compared to the original.
And still, because this "stolen footage" is not the heart of their video and was cut randomly into it, it can be considered Fair Use. Not only because it isn't the main focus of the video or the length used is short... But also for the same reason why youtubers can do react content with impunity. The voice over is the content people go there to watch, NOT the footagel used, which is also considered "transformative", believe it or not.
 

But if that's that enough to convince you, here's the definition of "transformative" according to Copyright.gov

Quote

 Transformative uses are those that add something new, with a further purpose or different character, and do not substitute for the original use of the work.

The fact that using these few seconds do not create of substitute for the original video, adds something new (the voice over) and is of different character, is transformative. But hey, if you still don't agree... Lets agree to disagree and move on. At the end of the day, what we think on this doesn't matter, it's LMG that will decide whether or not they want to pursue it.

[wanderingfool2]

21 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

The fact that using these few seconds do not create of substitute for the original video, adds something new (the voice over) and is of different character, is transformative. But hey, if you still don't agree... Lets agree to disagree and move on. At the end of the day, what we think on this doesn't matter, it's LMG that will decide whether or not they want to pursue it.

The voiceover isn't commentating on the b-roll footage, it's talking about EA.  That eliminates the "transformative" argument entirely, as they aren't transforming the work.  They are using a section of it as a pretty background thing.  It would be different if the video use was to show a point, but it's not.  It is not "adding something new" to the b-roll...it's literally using it as a way to visualize the EA office.  Again the commentary is on EA not the b-roll footage, which means it's not really transformative.  If your claim they went to listen to the voice-over, then I argue they could just put a black background then...but they wouldn't because no one really would watch it (or not nearly as many).  So again, no it's not transformative

 

32 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

Rewatching the video more carefully, it looks to me they only used a handful of seconds at a time, I counted less than 20 seconds total before I got bored. On a 10 minutes video. So I'm guessing it might be something like 30s tops. Unless the entire thing is stolen straight from the LTT video and I'm just blind. Which is entirely possible.

The last like 48 seconds was nearly exclusively spliced b-roll from the LTT video.

 

33 minutes ago, TetraSky said:

And still, because this "stolen footage" is not the heart of their video and was cut randomly into it, it can be considered Fair Use.

Let me make this clear, you can't just pull random clips from videos and then claim it's okay to use it because it's "fair use".  For something to be fair use it needs to meet more requirements and like it or not, it's still copyright infringement.

 

It's not good to say "agree to disagree" because it's this silly mentality of overusing the words "it's fair use" which is a major problem.  This is in no way a fair use (if it's b-roll from LTT...there is actually a chance it's EA provided b-roll).

[Avocado Diaboli]

1 hour ago, TetraSky said:

And still, because this "stolen footage" is not the heart of their video and was cut randomly into it, it can be considered Fair Use. Not only because it isn't the main focus of the video or the length used is short... But also for the same reason why youtubers can do react content with impunity. The voice over is the content people go there to watch, NOT the footagel used, which is also considered "transformative", believe it or not.

Nonsense. It's still a copyright violation. When will people learn this? You can't just cut up a million songs, reassemble them randomly as samples and claim that it's fair use because you just used half a second of each song. You can't just talk over music or footage in a video and claim that because people are there for your commentary and not the music or footage that you're using either as fair use. 

 

Jump to 5:02 for another good explanation why as well as why he censored the album covers even though he was talking about the music of those albums.

 

And I'd argue reaction content is very much copyright infringement. The same video details Mystery Science Theater 3000 and how they licensed all the movies they made fun of. They essentially reacted to an entire movie and most viewers didn't just want to watch the movie on their own, they were there for the MST3K content. And yet they couldn't just legally broadcast that without securing the necessary licenses. Just because most rights holders don't go after these people on YouTube doesn't mean it still isn't copyright infringement.

 

Every meme you post without permission from the person who originally made the image is copyright infringement. Your profile picture is copyright infringement unless you made it yourself or licensed it from the original artist/rights holder. It doesn't matter if it's legally pursued or not, that's the long and short of it. People love hiding behind fair use and claim any content made for YouTube is inherently fair use because "hey, I'm there for whatever the uploader has to say about it, not for what's being shown or played in the video, so it's transformative." And that's just not the reality of how copyright works. Never has been and probably never will be.

[Kilrah]

6 hours ago, TetraSky said:

And still, because this "stolen footage" is not the heart of their video and was cut randomly into it, it can be considered Fair Use. Not only because it isn't the main focus of the video or the length used is short... But also for the same reason why youtubers can do react content with impunity.

Nope, reaction videos are fair use because the person who reacts is commenting on the thing they're showing. If you comment on how "movie X shows this" you can't make your own footage to illustrate it, hence why you can show excerpts of "movie X showing this".

Can't use B-roll under fair use since you're by definition not commenting on that particular shot, and thus could substitute any other similar B-roll or make your own. It would be only if they were commenting about how LTT filmed this, didn't show that,... which would require this actual footage and no other to be able to illustrate it.

[Vishera]

Copy right laws are rather vague,

This case is borderline between fair use and a DMCA violation.

In cases like this it can go either way and that's why copy right cases are so expensive to counter in a court of law (In the USA).

[Mark Kaine]

On 12/27/2021 at 9:44 PM, shinydiol said:

Stumbled on this video on Reddit

well in my humble opinion,  all you did was advertising the video that you apparently wanted to denounce instead...

 

i only skipped through... ea bad... "Steve Jobs" (lmao).... Activision (wut) ... the end, absolutely terrible, nonsensical and pointless... but you watched it,  the whole thing... (oof)... *i dont believe you.gif*... sus!

 

Also fyi afaik ltt doesn’t go after videos like that, an in *this* case i think for very good reasons...  

 

To quote a very honest youtuber: "i wouldn't wish this garbage on anyone."

 

20 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

Nonsense. It's still a copyright violation. When will people learn this? You can't just cut up a million songs, reassemble them randomly as samples and claim that it's fair use because you just used half a second of each song. You can't just talk over music or footage in a video and claim that because people are there for your commentary and not the music or footage that you're using either as fair use. 

and yet, there are probably hundreds of thousands videos on youtube doing exactly that, often with very high view counts so this is really just your opinion (and its most likely wrong)

 

oh and they aren't using "half a second " , theyre using the whole song,  often the complete album.

 

if you think about,  its pretty obvious not the same thing as blatantly broadcasting the thing *without* any commentary or other distractions... which would be indeed a clear copyright violation...

 

sure some might get taken down... after picking up the views and probably the $, but most of them really don't in my impression. 

 

Or something like this,  basically same thing just even more obvious "fair use"

 

kind of like it, on the other hand he clearly lacks the feel imo, his style is way too "clean" and "harsh" and his drums sound kinda shit... i guess thats often the point of "reaction videos" people who have no clue about the thing they're reacting to react more  "interesting"

(look up lady gaga artpop reaction videos for that lol)

 

 

 

 

 

 

[wanderingfool2]

1 hour ago, Mark Kaine said:

and yet, there are probably hundreds of thousands videos on youtube doing exactly that, often with very high view counts so this is really just your opinion (and its most likely wrong)

Jaywalking can be against the law, and yet plenty of people do it every day (without punishment).  Just because something is done frequently and no action is taken doesn't mean it's right.

 

There are a lot of cases where people walk a fine line between fair use and copyright infringement but an even larger amount that straight up use copyrighted work.  It's also hard to tell how many videos have been claimed (and the right holders choose to keep the ad revenue instead of taking down a video).

 

1 hour ago, Mark Kaine said:

if you think about,  its pretty obvious not the same thing as blatantly broadcasting the thing *without* any commentary or other distractions... which would be indeed a clear copyright violation...

The key is commentary would have to be on the actual used video itself (not commentary on EA), which is what people seem to grasp.

[Avocado Diaboli]

1 hour ago, Mark Kaine said:

and yet, there are probably hundreds of thousands videos on youtube doing exactly that, often with very high view counts so this is really just your opinion (and its most likely wrong)

 

oh and they aren't using "half a second " , theyre using the whole song,  often the complete album.

Except you have no idea if those people actually license the songs or not. And just because a million people break copyright law on a daily basis without getting prosecuted doesn't mean they didn't break copyright law. Using a copyrighted song as background music if not explicitly licensed - if you're not actively talking about the music, critiquing it, etc. - is still copyright infringement. Just because content ID can't detect it because there's additional noise in the signal and just because the original copyright holder isn't aware of it (you don't honestly think Taylor Swift is sitting in front of her computer browsing random videos to content claim her music?) doesn't mean it's not copyright infringement.

 

1 hour ago, Mark Kaine said:

if you think about,  its pretty obvious not the same thing as blatantly broadcasting the thing *without* any commentary or other distractions... which would be indeed a clear copyright violation...

That's not the point. Fair use isn't just about not being just a literal copy of the content someone else owns. There's a pretty big hint in the word copyright: It is the right to determine how your work gets copied. You as the copyright owner get to dictate how your work gets to be used by others, obviously with the fair use exceptions. But those pretty much rule out using someone else's footage as random b-roll and treating it like stock footage. 

 

1 hour ago, Mark Kaine said:

Or something like this,  basically same thing just even more obvious "fair use"

Except he's actively talking about the music. "Enter Sandman" isn't background music there, it's part of the video, he is analyzing it, critiquing it. That's the pertinent difference.

[Mark Kaine]

2 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

Except he's actively talking about the music. "Enter Sandman" isn't background music there, it's part of the video, he is analyzing it, critiquing it. That's the pertinent difference 

i thought thats exactly what you're talking about...

reaction videos are generally seen as fair use as theyre talking about and criticize the thing they're reacting too.  it *is* the same thing as what the drummer is doing essentially. 

On 12/28/2021 at 9:56 AM, Avocado Diaboli said:

And I'd argue reaction content is very much copyright infringement.

 

and all i said is it seemingly is not.

 

 

2 hours ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

That's not the point.

That is *precisely* the point. 

 

We will just have to agree to disagree on this, Im not sure how to argue about such contradicting statements.

 

 

 

 

[Avocado Diaboli]

17 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

i thought thats exactly what you're talking about...

reaction videos are generally seen as fair use as theyre talking about and criticize the thing they're reacting too.  it *is* the same thing as what the drummer is doing essentially. 

 

and all i said is it seemingly is not.

A "reaction" and "critical analysis or review" are not the same. Once again I point towards the Tom Scott video and the bit about Mystery Science Theater 3000. The hosts of MST3K react to a movie, but they can't just broadcast the entire movie with their added reaction without licensing it. The video of a drummer also isn't just a reaction towards the song. A lot of reaction channels don't engage critically with the material they cover, they use it as a means to generate cheap content and profit off of the popularity of someone else's work. There's a reason why most of them react to other online or viral content and not Hollywood movies, entire TV episodes or music released by major labels in real time: They know those would go after them and for good reason. But most YouTubers won't go after other YouTubers reacting to their stuff, because they see it as free publicity. And simply put, a reaction is not the same thing as a review.

 

Edit: I just looked at the description of the video you posted with the drummer. Guess what, they licensed the song:

Edited December 29, 2021 by Avocado Diaboli
Additional information

[Mark Kaine]

3 hours ago, wanderingfool2 said:

The key is commentary would have to be on the actual used video itself (not commentary on EA), which is what people seem to grasp.

in the video in the op probably yes, i never said otherwise,  although even that might be tricky, but regardless,  who decides this, certainly no internet forum posters, and neither should "youtube" even though thats who often ends up doing these decisions.

 

 

39 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

And simply put, a reaction is not the same thing as a review.

of course not, see thats an imo true statement,  but then you say that the drummer is "reviewing" it, which he isnt really,  he's quite literally reacting to it and *then* tries to replicate it, which is probably slightly different than most reaction videos, but from the ones i seen certainly not much different,  those have usually a more in depth analysis, and lastly neither could be seen as a review, because as said often these people aren't really into the thing they're reacting to,  hence they lack the knowledge  - of course they can still critique it.

 

and Hollywood movies... thats a good point,  i dont think "full" movies or episodes would fly with youtube, but parts, even lengthy ones (10 minutes at a time or so) do seem to fly... I seem to remember i have seen several of those from Joe Scott for example,  and its not even reaction videos, more like an analysis,  so it could again be argued if those are actually "fair use" or not, as per the law, and another example of how tricky the interpretation of such is.

 

 

[RejZoR]

On 12/28/2021 at 6:47 AM, TetraSky said:

Looks and smells like fair use to me.

You're allowed to take existing footage as long as you transform it into your own work.

This video doesn't revolve around LTT's footage, it's only there to illustrate their completely subject in a transformative matter.

That's not what transformative means. That would apply if the video was "LTT visited Monolith and here is my take on the event" where you use the video from LTT and do commentary on it. And even that often doesn't fly. Just try chopping up a music video and apply your logic to it. It'll be claimed in seconds. Even when you do commentary or other similar work on someone's work, if it's from big studios, music or movies it'll be claimed or taken down.