DogManDan Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 (edited) So, H3adsh0t and Fait getting copyright strikes for royalty free music from someone who doesn't even own the rights to said music is right? Remember: 3 of those and you have the case we see right now. No, for fair use you do not need to explicitly ask for permission of the copyright holder. Otherwise you'd be asking for permission to create a simple Star Trek facepalm gif or even if you want to draw any kind of fan art of anything. Monetization is one thing, but did QS even do that? I don't recall ever seeing any ads on her vids. I might remember that incorrectly, but if there were no ads, there was no money made. It is still their responsibility to prove the Royalty free is as such and MUST be noted in the video description as well as the video itself should be categorized as creative commons works not under standard YT videos. Trying to argue with me on the copyright facts is not going to get you far as I have a very deep understanding of it and have dealt with it many times myself and still do to this day when random companies or individuals try to claim on content. As for the second part, yes QS had ads running on all the videos and there was money being made. In regards to fair use, it is not as simple as you want to make it sound; there are a lot more restrictions and gray areas here which hurt the creator not the original holder. Again all burden of proof with rights of use fall on the creator it is that simple and if you do not have what YT requests as proof you are out of luck. Edited October 10, 2015 by DogManDan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
izzatuw Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Well she has a new channel ^_^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omeggga Posted October 10, 2015 Author Share Posted October 10, 2015 Well she has a new channel ^_^ Yup, she's back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sir_deadlock Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 (edited) I'm not saying I disagree with you, but.... The use of clips is minimal compared to the people who put entire movies onto Youtube. This is a logical fallacy, commonly referred to as "two wrongs don't make a right." No matter how much less guilty a person may be, they are still guilty. (edit:) And even if everybody else is doing it, that doesn't make it acceptable. That said, this link says fair use is however long it takes to make a point, and no longer: http://www.cmsimpact.org/fair-use/best-practices/documentary/fair-use-frequently-asked-questions#length And this link, which practically quotes copyright law says that so long as the material used is not purely identical (is transformative) it is likely fair use: http://fairusetube.org/guide-to-youtube-removals/3-deciding-if-video-is-fair-use And here's the copyright law itself: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 Edited October 10, 2015 by sir_deadlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelus_de_Mortiel Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 (edited) It is still their responsibility to prove the Royalty free is as such and MUST be noted in the video description as well as the video itself should be categorized as creative commons works not under standard YT videos. Your information here is a bit off. Noting music in the description is a stipulation of Royalty-Free Attribution. If the music is purely royalty free with no strings (such as much of the music offered by YouTube itself), then there is no need to give Attribution unless you want to. Furthermore, you can often purchase one-time licenses of royalty-free attribution music to use it without Attribution if it does require it. If you really want to get specific, you really want to include the ISRC number in your attribution for YouTube's automated Content ID. Furthermore, the degree of attribution is up to the music artist/owner of the music. Most are fine with a segment of the description on YouTube. Some want billing in the credits of a video (if present). Some want description, billing in the video, and a verbal disclaimer from you in the video stating the title and artist of the music. That last one is an extreme example, but you get the idea. I worked as a music producer for about a decade before moving on to other things. Creative Commons and other self-publishing methods were mandatory learning for us, as well as licensing and proper attribution. I also use the royalty-free music of a few music-industry friends in my YouTube videos, properly attributed as they have asked me to. While what you said is not a bad idea, it is most certainly not mandated by any means. In regards to the video being licensed under Creative Commons on YouTube, that's the area that is actually not clear. See, there is not mandate stating that use of a Creative Commons or other Royalty-Free work requires a YouTube video to be licensed as Creative Commons, but some think it should. If I am wrong there, please feel free to provide a link so I can add it to my resources. I'm not saying I disagree with you, but.... This is a logical fallacy, commonly referred to as "two wrongs don't make a right." No matter how much less guilty a person may be, they are still guilty. (edit:) And even if everybody else is doing it, that doesn't make it acceptable. That said, this link says fair use is however long it takes to make a point, and no longer: http://www.cmsimpact.org/fair-use/best-practices/documentary/fair-use-frequently-asked-questions#length And this link, which practically quotes copyright law says that so long as the material used is not purely identical (is transformative) it is likely fair use: http://fairusetube.org/guide-to-youtube-removals/3-deciding-if-video-is-fair-use And here's the copyright law itself: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107 Fair play to you, sir! This is exactly right. It also talks about using the iconic segments from copyrighted work, such as once when someone used the line "I can't get no satisfaction" from the Rolling Stone's "Satisfaction". That was determined not to be Fair Use, despite only being five words of the entire song, as it used the most memorable part of that song. Wait, your name actually starts with "sir"... Well, this is awkward... Edited October 10, 2015 by Angelus_de_Mortiel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainAjax Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 her new channel, help her get back to where she was. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLPBnMwDwtOOEegviAyKcEg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sci_Ant Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 her new channel, help her get back to where she was. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLPBnMwDwtOOEegviAyKcEg Already at 10.5k subscribers! Go Shy....i mean Shallow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
321agemo Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 Already at 10.5k subscribers! Go Shy....i mean Shallow! Im still gonna call her shy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tntfan123 Posted October 14, 2015 Share Posted October 14, 2015 This works much better. I really need to go punch something. Unfortunately I don't know where the google headquarters is or how to get on site without being detained. Googles HQ is located in Mountain View, California, US ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts