Received a Copyright Claim... On a Video That Follows Fair Use...

[Trik'Stari]

Doesn't mean anything. Youtube does not necessarily operate under US law. If you check their Terms of Service it says that Youtube operates under the law of whichever country that particular translation of the ToS is for.

For example, The UK one says: "The Terms, and your relationship with YouTube under the Terms, shall be governed by English law"

The Finnish one says: "Ehtoihin ja suhteeseesi YouTubeen Ehtojen alla sovelletaan Suomen lakia" Which basically means: "The Terms, and your relationship with YouTube under the Terms, shall be governed by Finnish law."

The following is specifically about fair use, Source: https://www.youtube.com/yt/copyright/fair-use.html

"Different countries have different rules about when it’s okay to use material without the copyright owner’s permission"

EDIT: Damn links.

Well, if he's in the US then he's covered. Or do what total biscuit did, and upload a video explaining what happened to the other video, and call the company what it is, dirty and underhanded for abusing the copyright claims system. You can't just claim copyright infringment because someone gives you a bad review, that's censorship.

[RelentlessAF]

-snip-

Right but in my case it falls under U.S. Copyright law as I am from the U.S.

[juretrn]

Link to video if possible?

[RelentlessAF]

Link to video if possible?

Don't want to break CoC.

[Trik'Stari]

Don't want to break CoC.

PM it to those who ask. I'd like to see.

[Builder]

Critique and review are considered protected speech under US law.

Protected speech, sure. But not necessarily footage of a copyrighted game. You can make a review without using copyrighted footage and sounds. What you say about the game is protected, not how you say it and what you use to say it.

 

-snip-

Valve are fine with it, but we still don't know what game it is or who the company is. They could be fairly litigious about their copyright.

[RelentlessAF]

Protected speech, sure. But not necessarily footage of a copyrighted game. You can make a review without using copyrighted footage and sounds. What you say about the game is protected, not how you say it and what you use to say it.

 

Valve are fine with it, but we still don't know what game it is or who the company is. They could be fairly litigious about their copyright.

Footage of the game is apart of the review, being able to show what you are talking about is an important part of getting the message to the consumer. There really isn't a reason why they shouldn't allow you to profit from a review, at least I can't think of one. It isn't a valve game so you're right on how that only pertains to Valve.

[Builder]

Footage of the game is apart of the review, being able to show what you are talking about is an important part of getting the message to the consumer. There really isn't a reason why they shouldn't allow you to profit from a review, at least I can't think of one. It isn't a valve game so you're right on how that only pertains to Valve.

Look at the first stipulation of the fair use doctrine:

 

"the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;"

[RelentlessAF]

Look at the first stipulation of the fair use doctrine:

 

"the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;"

But that even defines it as use of a commercial nature. Commercial also really implies "selling" a product as well. Earning ad revenue from ad overlays isn't necessarily a commercial practice.

[Trik'Stari]

Here's what you do, edit your video, flip every single frame, then re-upload it. That technically makes it original footage I think.

[RelentlessAF]

Here's what you do, edit your video, flip every single frame, then re-upload it. That technically makes it original footage I think.

I don't see the point really, the video has about 10 views, so they ad revenue I would make off it would be extremely negligible and so far I haven't received a strike as far as I know.

[Raid]

But that even defines it as use of a commercial nature. Commercial also really implies "selling" a product as well. Earning ad revenue from ad overlays isn't necessarily a commercial practice.

Commercial only implies that you make money out of it.

On a semi-related note, anyone know what's Youtube policy on copyright claims from companies/people outside the US on works made by Americans?

[RelentlessAF]

Commercial only implies that you make money out of it.

On a semi-related note, anyone know what's Youtube policy on copyright claims from companies/people outside the US on works made by Americans?

Commercial, in the U.S. at least, is when you provide goods or services and charge a fee in exchange.

[Trik'Stari]

Commercial, in the U.S. at least, is when you provide goods or services and charge a fee in exchange.

That's the kicker, you aren't charging a fee to watch your video, so their claim is bogus. At least in my opinion. Just another incident of Dev's getting mad that someone called there product crap.

 

 

Edit: I watched it again on youtube and commented

[Raid]

Commercial, in the U.S. at least, is when you provide goods or services and charge a fee in exchange.

Can't say I find any source that agrees with that. All online sources relating to US law that I could find, which includes the EFF and several sites dedicated entirely to explaining US law, which offer a definition of "Commercial use" as it pertains to US law say that commercial use is an extremely broad term and includes all sorts of things, most notably making a profit.

Similarly all definitions of noncommercial specifically state that it includes non-profit.

A particular note of interest are the explanations of Fair Use provided by the EFF, and also the 255-page study by the Creative Commons people about what noncommercial means, which both specifically state that whether or not a work is Fair Use varies wildly from case to case, so in some cases even a noncommercial work can be infringing and at other times a commercial work may not.

Another thing I'd like you to note is that if the person/company making the copyright is located outside the US, they may have done the copyright claim based on their own local laws. Since, they most likely do not know where you are located and/or don't care as Youtube policies imply that only the users local laws apply on top of Youtube's internal policies.

[Builder]

Earning ad revenue from ad overlays isn't necessarily a commercial practice.

Not necessarily.

[RelentlessAF]

-snip-

I haven't found any case in which things have been considered commercial without it being an exchange of sorts. All commercial businesses in the U.S. offer a service in exchange for monetary compensation. When a company earns money without the exchange it is called "For-Profit" and is not considered a Commercial business. The law may state that commercial is a rather broad term but it has regional definitions as to what is commercial and what is not.

[RelentlessAF]

Not necessarily.

Seems like more of a loophole than anything then.

[Mooshi]

Welcome to the corruption of devs and shoddy "journalism" in the gaming community where an honest review will be censored if you're not outright kissing dev ass and giving them 11/10.

[Trik'Stari]

The simple fact is, there are hundreds of reviewers that do the exact same thing, in many different countries, that haven't been copyright punished, and most of the time when they are, it's because they gave something a bad review.

[RelentlessAF]

Welcome to the corruption of devs and shoddy "journalism" in the gaming community where an honest review will be censored if you're not outright kissing dev ass and giving them 11/10.

 

The simple fact is, there are hundreds of reviewers that do the exact same thing, in many different countries, that haven't been copyright against, and most of the time when they are, it's because they gave something a bad review.

Pretty ridiculous, makes me wish there were another platform with the kind of structure of YouTube but run by a company with a backbone.

[Mooshi]

The simple fact is, there are hundreds of reviewers that do the exact same thing, in many different countries, that haven't been copyright against, and most of the time when they are, it's because they gave something a bad review.

 

And this is why #GamerGate is important. It's not all about some sluts sex life who made a shitty game, it's about BS like this where people are being censored for being honest and cover-ups on top of false flagging. That needs to end and gamers need to stand against it.

 

Since Youtube is automated and the site is massive, abuse like this is way more common than it should be. Dev couldn't handle criticism, so they are trying to censor you.

[Trik'Stari]

And this is why #GamerGate is important. It's not all about some sluts sex life who made a shitty game, it's about BS like this where people are being censored for being honest and cover-ups on top of false flagging. That needs to end and gamers need to stand against it.

No Idea what #GamerGate is. I don't do twitter. Or facebook, or myspace.

[NInety]

What game was it?

[Raid]

I haven't found any case in which things have been considered commercial without it being an exchange of sorts. All commercial businesses in the U.S. offer a service in exchange for monetary compensation. When a company earns money without the exchange it is called "For-Profit" and is not considered a Commercial business. The law may state that commercial is a rather broad term but it has regional definitions as to what is commercial and what is not.

Youtube ads are still commercial even under that definition. You are exchanging ad-space for money.