My First Youtube copyright block

This thread is not about whining by me or wanting people to agree with my video or anything like that. Its just a discussion of what constitutes fair use policy on places like youtube.

So after doing many youtube videos for around 8 months or so, I have finally had my first video blocked for copyright violation.

Its was this video (which I have no idea if others can see, I can, but I dont know if the block affects others)



For those of you that can't see.

I took about 7 minutes of an 8 minute clip of the opening of "Morning Joe", and made a video criticizing it that totaled in at 47 minutes.

The notice I had a an audio copyright complaint from NBC universal.

I know the reason this viedo got a complaint, as opposed to say the Rachel Maddow video I used more of a day earlier was that this was the first time I actually used the clip straight from NBC as opposed to a different channel showing their material.

Have you ever noticed when you watch a news clip from a youtube channel they add little sound effects or graphics. I think that is to stop sort of digital algorithms that these corporations use to pick up when their material is being used.

Thus I think that algo pocked me up, not some NBC worker who saw my video.

Now sure, I could add those sound effects in to beat that algo, but thats not really the point. In fact, the only reason only an algo would catch me is because I am a very small youtuber, with around 100 views per video (if I am lucky). I personaally know people thaat are caught beyond algos because they have 50 thousand people watching their video. In other words, if your criticism of the msm video has a large enough reach, its removed.

The point is, what constitutes fair use?

So youtube has a little help page on it,here is the relevant part of what they say fair use is.

1. The purpose and character, of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes

Courts typically focus on whether the use is “transformative.” That is, whether it adds new expression or meaning to the original, or whether it merely copies from the original. Commercial uses are less likely to be considered fair, though it’s possible to monetize a video and still have one's usage be a fair use.

2. The nature of the copyright work

Using material from primarily factual works is more likely to be fair than using purely fictional works.

3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole

Borrowing small bits of material from an original work is more likely to be considered fair use than borrowing large portions. However, even a small taking may weigh against fair use in some situations if it constitutes the “heart” of the work.

4. The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work

Uses that harm the copyright owner’s ability to profit from his or her original work are less likely to be fair uses. Courts have sometimes made an exception under this factor in cases involving parodies.

support.google.com...


So there are no clear guidelines. For the record, my videos are not monetized, and so thus I would make no money off of them, which apparently makes fair use more lenient

So I disputed the copyright block on the grounds that I feel I used the clip from morning joe in line with fair use.

Here is roughly what I said.

"I was providing commentary on a publicly available clip. My video subsatntially changed the messaging of the clip I used (I was criticizing it) and I only used around 7 minutes of a 40 minute or so show. In addition, I used 7 minutes of video while providing 40 minutes of commentary. In other words, my material made up 85% of my video.

If this is not fair use, then when Morning Joe or other shows like it show a 30 second clip of another show, and comment on it for two or three minutes, that also would not be fair use"

I understand the need to block copyrighted material. For example, many people on youtube not only totally rip off complete shows and post them, but they monetize while doing so. That seems to be a legitimate harm to the original creator of material.

But surely there has to be room for reviews or criticism of material. For example, lets say I spend 25 minutes reviewing a three minute song. I play clips of the song, then discuss the chord progression or vocals, etc. This is clearly not ripping of the original creator.

If someone like me can't criticize a public media video using 85% of my own material doing so, we are dangerously close to a form of censorship. No doubt this would be allowed to be done by larger firms (like NBC using foxnews clips to criticize) because they have lawyers to argue.

Imagine how this would have played out in written word. Some of the most thought provoking books were ones that criticized another book. No longer would you be able to write a book criticizing another book, or an article criticizing another. You would only be able to do so if you didnt directly have the material you were criticizing directly quoted. Thus all academic criticism, which encourage direct citation as opposed to paraphrasing, would be eliminated.

This sort of censorship is very important today, when we see the EU has passed article that will seek to punish people for even linking to material from other sources. This seems a clever way to keep criticism of the main stream media to a minimum, as independent people can't even link to their stories. Convenient when the msm is 95% in cahoots.

So I await the reults of my dispute. To be honest I am not optimistic. I like many other youtubers am less upset about the removal, and more frustrated that there are not clear guidelines. If there were, I would do my best to follow them even if I disagreed.

a reply to: Grambler

Thats what happens when ya mess with Scarborough ...

So an update.

My video on Rachel Maddow was also removed

I also have researched, and by my disputing these removals, I will receive a copy right strike if they are upoheld.

Three strikes and my channel is finished permanently.

This will be two.

How do I know?

Well because the people determining rather or not my use of the material was fair use is..... The people who initially said it was a violation!

You would think someone at youtube or google or any third party would make the decisions, but nope, its the original compliant that gets to decide on the dispute.

So basicaly anyone can remove your material, if you dispute that, then your entire channel is punisghed.

This will have the desired effect on me, I will no longer be able to do video criticizing the msm using their own clips.

Gotta love those censoring democrats eh!

They control 95% of the msm, academia, the entertainment indsurty, and now they will censor anyone who dares to criticize them online as well!

a reply to: Grambler

It's not your material. It's that simple. Why do you think you even have an argument to make?

In your OP you also said you substantially changed the messaging of the clip - I take it you mean you changed it's original points to something that suited the message you wanted to put forward. Effectively that makes you the censor as you want people to believe something that's false to keep your own bias intact.

Amazing how you manage to make everything about democrats isn't it.

Congratulations at hitting not only too close to home, but out of the park.

The assault on free speech continues...

a reply to: Grambler


The copy right claim strike is used by the fascists to take down channels who speak ideas that are opposing to theirs. Sounds like you made some SJW's mad. Wouldn't surprise me if they are members here to be honest. This has been the new way of shutting down channels versus the ole hate speech trick they used previously.

All you can do is keep fighting Ytube to prove you didn't violate the fair use. They get a complaint they just strike it, period. No looking into it at all unless forced to do so.

That's how they roll.

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: Grambler

It's not your material. It's that simple. Why do you think you even have an argument to make?

In your OP you also said you substantially changed the messaging of the clip - I take it you mean you changed it's original points to something that suited the message you wanted to put forward. Effectively that makes you the censor as you want people to believe something that's false to keep your own bias intact.

Amazing how you manage to make everything about democrats isn't it.

This just needed repeating.

Good God, people need to shrug off this victim mentality.

I see the future of many people here, sitting in a padded room, drooling and screaming about the Democrats.

a reply to: uncommitted

AAnd so instead of just hitting repliy to me, had you hit quote, and quoted my post, I guess you violated my copyright on my material.

You used my words in your post then, right?

This is so dumb.

People have the right to use publicly available material to criticize.

I can use clips from a book in my own book and criticize them.

The idea of changing the messaging is part of what makes fair use allowed; I cant post someones song, but I may post the song if the point is to review the song in some way, as long as the song is not played in its entirety and makes up the majority of my video.

And yes, the idea of wanting to have control over all forms of cultural info is a democrat thing. Well more of a gloablist thing to be true which the dems are a part of, just like article 13 in the eu.

They arent satisfied with gatekeeping 90% of all culturally relevant institutions, they need 100%.

originally posted by: Jefferton

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: Grambler

It's not your material. It's that simple. Why do you think you even have an argument to make?

In your OP you also said you substantially changed the messaging of the clip - I take it you mean you changed it's original points to something that suited the message you wanted to put forward. Effectively that makes you the censor as you want people to believe something that's false to keep your own bias intact.

Amazing how you manage to make everything about democrats isn't it.

This just needed repeating.

Good God, people need to shrug off this victim mentality.

I see the future of many people here, sitting in a padded room, drooling and screaming about the Democrats.

Says the people who see russians under their bed everyday, even when proven wrong.

So I suppose you have never linked an article on a post here on ATS?

If so, you are a hypocrite, because you have uised publish material without the authorization of the creator of that material.

I love the very same type of people that claim to be oppressed victims start to claim others are victims when speaking outr against censorship.

Double speak at its finest.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: uncommitted

AAnd so instead of just hitting repliy to me, had you hit quote, and quoted my post, I guess you violated my copyright on my material.

You used my words in your post then, right?

This is so dumb.

People have the right to use publicly available material to criticize.

I can use clips from a book in my own book and criticize them.

The idea of changing the messaging is part of what makes fair use allowed; I cant post someones song, but I may post the song if the point is to review the song in some way, as long as the song is not played in its entirety and makes up the majority of my video.

And yes, the idea of wanting to have control over all forms of cultural info is a democrat thing. Well more of a gloablist thing to be true which the dems are a part of, just like article 13 in the eu.

They arent satisfied with gatekeeping 90% of all culturally relevant institutions, they need 100%.

No, I didn't violate your copyright because your posts on here are not your copyright - they are the copyright of ATS.

You might want to try and do a little bit of education on the subject, you are clearly lacking it.

"People have the right to use publicly available material to criticize."

If it's been placed in the public domain without any restrictions or caveats placed against it, that's correct. If not, then it isn't - that's tough, but it's a fact. Just having an opinion doesn't make you right, having an opinion without having the facts risks you looking like an idiot.

And again, all the democrats fault. Can you validate the percentages you quoted or once again are you just making things up to try and prove your bias?

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Jefferton

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: Grambler

It's not your material. It's that simple. Why do you think you even have an argument to make?

In your OP you also said you substantially changed the messaging of the clip - I take it you mean you changed it's original points to something that suited the message you wanted to put forward. Effectively that makes you the censor as you want people to believe something that's false to keep your own bias intact.

Amazing how you manage to make everything about democrats isn't it.

This just needed repeating.

Good God, people need to shrug off this victim mentality.

I see the future of many people here, sitting in a padded room, drooling and screaming about the Democrats.

Says the people who see russians under their bed everyday, even when proven wrong.

So I suppose you have never linked an article on a post here on ATS?

If so, you are a hypocrite, because you have uised publish material without the authorization of the creator of that material.

I love the very same type of people that claim to be oppressed victims start to claim others are victims when speaking outr against censorship.

Double speak at its finest.

Once again, look at the T's and C's on ATS, your posts aren't under your personal copyright. Sheesh, this is embarrassing.

YouTube uses bots to analyze videos for copyrighted material. More to the point, Corporations run their own bots or, worse, hire shady and sleazy copyright management firms to run bots for them.

If these bots detect even a second or two of copyrighted material they automatically flag the video.

One of my friends spent several weeks fighting a copyright claim against his channel because HIS voice was detected by the bots - in his own video - and the company he signed with to help manage his channel ( I can't think of the Orwellian term they use for such groups off hand ) had their bots out hunting.

IE the process is almost entirely automated.

I would guess that some copyright trolls bots found the Morning Joe video or audio to be a match and that triggered a flag for one of their employees to either have other bots scan all of your content or to manually peruse your past posts, thus finding the Maddow video.

Usually these companies don't pursue Copyright strikes as they can simply Copyright claim everything they find, monetize it and collect 100% of the revenue.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Jefferton

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: Grambler

It's not your material. It's that simple. Why do you think you even have an argument to make?

In your OP you also said you substantially changed the messaging of the clip - I take it you mean you changed it's original points to something that suited the message you wanted to put forward. Effectively that makes you the censor as you want people to believe something that's false to keep your own bias intact.

Amazing how you manage to make everything about democrats isn't it.

This just needed repeating.

Good God, people need to shrug off this victim mentality.

I see the future of many people here, sitting in a padded room, drooling and screaming about the Democrats.

Says the people who see russians under their bed everyday, even when proven wrong.

So I suppose you have never linked an article on a post here on ATS?

If so, you are a hypocrite, because you have uised publish material without the authorization of the creator of that material.

I love the very same type of people that claim to be oppressed victims start to claim others are victims when speaking outr against censorship.

Double speak at its finest.

Look, you've made up your mind, I see that.

But, not everything is a war. You will be much happier if you realize that.

Edit to add:
I've literally never mentioned Russians, or gave any opinions on that subject. That's just more of that imaginary war in your head.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Jefferton

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: Grambler

It's not your material. It's that simple. Why do you think you even have an argument to make?

In your OP you also said you substantially changed the messaging of the clip - I take it you mean you changed it's original points to something that suited the message you wanted to put forward. Effectively that makes you the censor as you want people to believe something that's false to keep your own bias intact.

Amazing how you manage to make everything about democrats isn't it.

This just needed repeating.

Good God, people need to shrug off this victim mentality.

I see the future of many people here, sitting in a padded room, drooling and screaming about the Democrats.

Says the people who see russians under their bed everyday, even when proven wrong.

So I suppose you have never linked an article on a post here on ATS?

If so, you are a hypocrite, because you have uised publish material without the authorization of the creator of that material.

I love the very same type of people that claim to be oppressed victims start to claim others are victims when speaking outr against censorship.

Double speak at its finest.

Once again, look at the T's and C's on ATS, your posts aren't under your personal copyright. Sheesh, this is embarrassing.

Fair enough.

SO I assume you have never posted an article on ats?

I mean, you would be infringging on copyrights then, correct?

originally posted by: Jefferton

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Jefferton

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: Grambler

It's not your material. It's that simple. Why do you think you even have an argument to make?

In your OP you also said you substantially changed the messaging of the clip - I take it you mean you changed it's original points to something that suited the message you wanted to put forward. Effectively that makes you the censor as you want people to believe something that's false to keep your own bias intact.

Amazing how you manage to make everything about democrats isn't it.

This just needed repeating.

Good God, people need to shrug off this victim mentality.

I see the future of many people here, sitting in a padded room, drooling and screaming about the Democrats.

Says the people who see russians under their bed everyday, even when proven wrong.

So I suppose you have never linked an article on a post here on ATS?

If so, you are a hypocrite, because you have uised publish material without the authorization of the creator of that material.

I love the very same type of people that claim to be oppressed victims start to claim others are victims when speaking outr against censorship.

Double speak at its finest.

Look, you've made up your mind, I see that.

But, not everything is a war. You will be much happier if you realize that.

Do I seem unhappy?

I love life and am one of the happiest people you will find.

My dislike of censorship by an ideology that dominates our cultural institutions of power does not make me a sad victim.

On the contrary, I love pointing out the abusrdity

a reply to: Hefficide

Thanks for the info.

Yeah I disputed the content id blcok without realizing that if I lose the dispute, that means I get a strike. We will see if it is upheld.

Seeing as how my account is not monetized, the percentage of my video that came from their clips, and the fact that my use was criticism, I feel it is fair use.

If you feel the need to exercise fair use, and the use is for nonprofit and educational purpose, here a few acceptable uses to consider:

Criticism: Reviewing a movie or some form of music makes it perfectly acceptable to use copyrighted material without permission, for example short clips on the work you critique.

www.dummies.com...

Again, if using small clips from videos or articles and criticizing them is not allowed, then the idea of the internet allowing dissenting opinions and taking away control from the gatekeepers of news will no longer be applicable.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Jefferton

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: Grambler

It's not your material. It's that simple. Why do you think you even have an argument to make?

In your OP you also said you substantially changed the messaging of the clip - I take it you mean you changed it's original points to something that suited the message you wanted to put forward. Effectively that makes you the censor as you want people to believe something that's false to keep your own bias intact.

Amazing how you manage to make everything about democrats isn't it.

This just needed repeating.

Good God, people need to shrug off this victim mentality.

I see the future of many people here, sitting in a padded room, drooling and screaming about the Democrats.

Says the people who see russians under their bed everyday, even when proven wrong.

So I suppose you have never linked an article on a post here on ATS?

If so, you are a hypocrite, because you have uised publish material without the authorization of the creator of that material.

I love the very same type of people that claim to be oppressed victims start to claim others are victims when speaking outr against censorship.

Double speak at its finest.

Once again, look at the T's and C's on ATS, your posts aren't under your personal copyright. Sheesh, this is embarrassing.

Fair enough.

SO I assume you have never posted an article on ats?

I mean, you would be infringging on copyrights then, correct?

I'm not quite sure what you are attempting to say? Could you elucidate? You mean have I put links to the original source if said source was something I was referring to in a post? Yes I have. Is that the same is me posting copyright restricted material on youtube which I have then altered to reflect my personal point of view rather than the view that was originally expressed in that material? No, I haven't. I'm not inclined to do so.

Thanks for conceding that your criticism of myself and Jefferton regarding copyright status of posts made on ATS was misguided and incorrect though, well, in so many words at least.

a reply to: Grambler

Sadly YouTubes policies are broken and fair use gets trampled on. The system is designed to allow companies to abuse it.

If they flag a video the onus falls upon the creator to prove fair use or to dispute copyright infringement in a very open "guilty until proven innocent" sort of situation.

Meanwhile the party who made the claim can monetize the video and collect all of the revenue during the dispute - even if they ultimately lose it. They still get the $.

The kicker is there's no downside to it. YouTube doesn't punish the copyright trolls at all.

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Jefferton

originally posted by: uncommitted
a reply to: Grambler

It's not your material. It's that simple. Why do you think you even have an argument to make?

In your OP you also said you substantially changed the messaging of the clip - I take it you mean you changed it's original points to something that suited the message you wanted to put forward. Effectively that makes you the censor as you want people to believe something that's false to keep your own bias intact.

Amazing how you manage to make everything about democrats isn't it.

This just needed repeating.

Good God, people need to shrug off this victim mentality.

I see the future of many people here, sitting in a padded room, drooling and screaming about the Democrats.

Says the people who see russians under their bed everyday, even when proven wrong.

So I suppose you have never linked an article on a post here on ATS?

If so, you are a hypocrite, because you have uised publish material without the authorization of the creator of that material.

I love the very same type of people that claim to be oppressed victims start to claim others are victims when speaking outr against censorship.

Double speak at its finest.

Once again, look at the T's and C's on ATS, your posts aren't under your personal copyright. Sheesh, this is embarrassing.

Fair enough.

SO I assume you have never posted an article on ats?

I mean, you would be infringging on copyrights then, correct?

I'm not quite sure what you are attempting to say? Could you elucidate? You mean have I put links to the original source if said source was something I was referring to in a post? Yes I have. Is that the same is me posting copyright restricted material on youtube which I have then altered to reflect my personal point of view rather than the view that was originally expressed in that material? No, I haven't. I'm not inclined to do so.

Thanks for conceding that your criticism of myself and Jefferton regarding copyright status of posts made on ATS was misguided and incorrect though, well, in so many words at least.

I conceded no such thing.

I have posted links showing criticism is appropriate fair use.

Exolain to me the difference between you posting an article you didnt have copyrioghts to on ats, and me posting it on youtube?

Yes both sites may have different terms of service, but fair use is a legal concept beyond sites terms of service.

Are you saying so long as you agreed with the article you posted, it was ok, but had you disagreed or criticized it, then its not?

a reply to: Grambler

They will pull any of my old groups copyrighted videos within a couple hrs because we have a professional relationship...and doc. to prove it.

A few times a month I request removal of something...and they do.