Might seem silly, but outside of the legality of it, at least a clip channel seems more genuine in their function than “classic” reaction channels

Fair use unless you get your feelings hurt them its copywriter. EVERY TIME.

Law Nerd Clips has my explicit consent to clip from my Rumble channel !

Faran always has drama 🙄

Clip channels are good for the growth of main channels.

She literally did this twice in four weeks and tried to apologize for the first time back in January. There are NO second chances for this sort of crap. She knew what she did was wrong the first time and tries to now justify it with YOUR HELP.

Regardless of the Legalities, CHAT WILL REMEMBER the 'Why'. Divinity Said was struck not for the Legality. What Chrissie Mayr and Faran did to Divinity Said, is exactly what Eliza Bleu has done to silence criticism. Slightly different methods, exactly same intent.

When people make clips that make the originator look good, everyone is happy. When people make clips that make the originator look bad, someone gets angry and sometimes people get copystruck. This is always the way it's been.

Faran needs to stay off KZfaq until she gets help.

I used the Murdaugh footage on my channel and got hit with a copyright claim from Associated Press-UK. The media order said no one could claim copyright. I sent them a link to the order and they backed off. You’re right about all this.

I am pretty sure Carl Benjamin BTFOing Akilah made it pretty obvious that it is fair use.

It's always Faran Balanced in the center of the drama tornadoes. She should rebrand as "Unfair and Unbalanced".

Personally, I like some of the clip channels. I don't have time for 3-hour streams, so I really appreciate the highlight clips.

Anyone remember when Nintendo was getting copyright strike happy? By Japan law, they were in their right, most likely. But as a result they saw a huge loss in sales. Surprisingly, people with a limited budget are more likely to spend their money when they better know if they will like a game.

What a hypocrite.When the Striker says in email " I did it because i was mad, sorry"....It's pretty telling.

Copyright striking may be completely valid sometimes..But it's ALWAYS bad for faith in your brand.

What clip channel is straight up just using clips with no editing or text? Seems to me divinity and law nerd clips are both not only editing multiple clips together they are adding commentary about said clips. It never was about people straight up stealing content, it was about the creators not wanting to look bad when they get called out so they abuse copyright and say it's not fair use. Nick finds away out of not dealing with the actual issue by saying it's all about fair use.

I thought fair use was what happens at a brothel

Context is always everything.

It's a grift. The question is how much grift is acceptable? Divinity took advantage of the moment, it's no different than anyone criticizing a celebrity for poor behavior.

In. My opinion the strike was personal

Good question. 99.999999% of them aren't making a penny though, and do it for fun. It's good publicity for the raw source. I'd say its transformative because taking a 5 minute clip and editing it down 60secs is an art in itself.

I would definitely download a car.

A lot of clip channels provide some sort of fan translation for the clip and its a super murky situation for copyright.

Seems to me when someone clips your content it shoots a promotion to your channel.. Right? Or am I seeing something wrong here?

Not surprising that this is still a quagmire. They took a subjective term like "fair use" and defined it with an even more subjective term like "transformative". That's just asking for trouble.

Now if you took a video of a regular bullfight where the bull flips the matador, edited out the bull and edited in a hand grenade, that would be transformative. Also hysterical.

I clip a lot. It's easy to make it commentary. Just make sure to tell a story about the clip, not of the clip. But those who clip parts of other's shows and only add subtitles are pushing it. I've had videos of mine uploaded 1 for 1, not a single change, and get more views than mine. Creators shouldn't do that. Makes me mad, but I always try contacting them first. Before using the copyright system.

Thank you for breaking this down! Could you also explain what entails Creative Common Attribution license? What if a channel has that activated and then a channel comes along and clips your videos , does a channel have a chance to copyright strike with that license activated on their channel? Thank you 👍🏼👍🏼

I'm less concerned about this and more concerned with why people who make videos can't even have music on in the background without getting DMCA.

Copy strike law has shown to hurt more than help. Just like in the examples you gave personally it's usually better to not hold people for sharing you content. It's usually better to let people clip and share but make sure they give proper citation.

I'll be sure to say I've posted a few clips of Rekieta if I see him in Philly. But he is right that just clipping isn't automatically transformative

Only lags ten years behind? Many are still in the 1800s over here, they still have paper stamping and printing for their legals and use couriers or the post to send them!

The clip channels really exploded after you got banned. This is because you left a void in the demand for your content. When there is demand, the market will provide.

Wondered the same ever since I saw them getting monetized.....🤔Same with the trailer channels.

"Legal reality is different from what I want." You need to go tell that to every single college campus in the nation.

If you make 3 hour streams for a living, and someone clipping 30 seconds is a legitimate threat to your business, maybe you should get a real job.

Depends, if they are straight up clips, then no, you'd probably lose that case. If they are cut up and arranged in such a way as to change the nature of the work, then probably, but you still need to argue that in court.

I wish you would say which stream each of these clips come from

Hi Rekieta, I would be interested in hearing your view on the case of Hachette v. Internet Archive that is going to oral arguments on Monday.

What Nick is trying to say is: If a Court ever evaluated this vid, it would likely not be deemed "fair use" of the original. 😀

So what does this mean for content copied and translated into another language? Nothing else changed, just the language of the voice over narration?

@rekieta law "Faran yada yada Divinity yada yada... did I mention I HATE talking about this crap. I hate drama" but grift. Out at 2:32. *yawn*

The clip channels I follow are basically ran with the blessings of the OG creators, and are "best of" montages of long live streams with pretty hefty editing and some added humour. Regardless of legality, the low effort of some clip channels really gets to me.

Well, the bottom line is, if someone is not using your own video to just make money without any type of commentary or clipping cuts. But why I like you Nick, is if some grabs a clip of any of your streams, and comments, and they don't know you, they will come look to see the whole video from you. Which is why you are always like, you can clip me, let me know, I am ok. I might get a few more subs and views on my full video. I think short clips, or public record, is suppose to be accessible and be commented on.

A good starting point is to ask yourself if you'd like others doing the same thing with YOUR hard-earned content.

I love making clips of the latest viral vids for my friends!

When you do nothing to the original work, it’s not fair use.

I have a feeling this isn't related to something like my clips channel that just uploads 10-40ish second clips of movies and/or TV shows of scenes that pop into my head. It isn't monetized or trying to be.

That is an excellent question.

The more important question is; Who wouldn't download a car?

Thanks for the breakdown.

When everyone was Throwing Elijah under the bus, you stood there, as i had failed to do a lot of times in my life. Thats enought to earn my admiration.

This is less about copyright strikes, and more about a personal beef between 2 people. I’ve subbed to some people, because of LNC. LNC does it in a favorable way and usually boosts the content creator, or hammers a point home. I think context is everything. BWDIK?

Can you cover / give your opinion on the lawyers of the Sanderson v. Paltrow case? As an expert in nothing, these lawyers and their questioning seem so amateur for a case so big.

16:50 where's a link to the video he's talking about? He keeps mentioning it but never links

How does Faran keep getting a free pass?

It depends if they transform the original content enough or not

Fair use never envisioned the reach of the internet. However, I think clip channels can be fair use as long as there is substantial commentary or the clips are used to punctuate the point being made.

Great topic Nick.

Cant find your channel on rumble. Did you get kicked off

The question often comes up with AI art as well. Artists are pissed because the AI is "using their art" when in reality the AI is only using pieces of lots of people's art and then applying filters and stuff, which to me sounds exactly like a transformative work.

I like how this is the discussion on youtube. Meanwhile on other social media platforms like tiktok, twitter, instagram, etc.... People are constantly taking content(video or photos) in their entirety and posting them unaltered, without permission, and without so much as a caption. It's seriously obnoxious as fuck how youtube is the ONLY platform that actually gives a damn about enforcing dmca. It's like fucking pulling teeth to get instagram/meta to enforce BLATANT dmca violations. I'd encourage people to look at the posts you're shown in an instagram feed. 90% of what you see is some account from someplace like vietnam that just runs a bot to repost other people's intellectually property with zero credit all day every day 24/7/365.

DOUGHNUT!!!!!

I am so glad you covered this! Not sure how I missed it. I covered the full Sargon case and people still wanna argue tlin the comments that all Sargon did was clip a long vid to short XD he did more than that

Without commentary, clip channels are not "legal" per se. Shutting down clip channels is absolutely stupid and counterproductive for any IP, as it lessens saturation and thereby clicks on source. With commentary... the only question is how much of the clip one uses.

Speaking as a professional musician, myself, I think copyright laws are pernicious and have done much more harm than good.

the Issue is that the law is 10 years behind get it up to speed since it's essential that it not be 10 years behind that's the failing that never seems to be addressed. Pull your finger and give it a sniff law and get on with your job.

So now how about when you use art or a photograph in your video? I do audiobook recordings and have been mindful to use only public domain or Creative Commons licensed images, but I have long wondered can I take a still from a video game? How about a single frame from a movie? My channel is not monetized so there's no money to be made from the use of the images either way, and I always give attribution where I can find it, but I often wonder how far can I go with using images like that. I had the idea just yesterday what if I were to start using AI generated art, is that ok? Talk about the courts being 10 year behind technology, if you give AI 10 years it will have already taken over the planet, we don't have 10 years for the courts to catch up on AI, they need to figure it out immediately. As in, drop everything else they are doing right now and go sort out AI stuff. That cannot wait. Certainly not 10 years.

Do you have any suggestions on ways how the legislative could begin to try to improve the copyright law for the social media era?

Would someone mind clipping this down to about five minutes? I don't even care if it's transformative, it's just that Nick was a bit long winded.

None of it is going to last.

I believe one should ask when using anyone else’s work. As an example I asked TUG’s permission to use his avatar before I got a tattoo of it.

👍🏽

"What's the medical term for it... *ponders* f around and find out."

I'm clipping this to start a clip channel

lmao dam, you hiding a huge gut behind that desk xD

Speaking of copyright, what about things like fanart?

bout to clip this Nick

the educational use is even worse/easier, maybe every clip channel has an educational use

yes i too am worried for the hololive clip channels. how else am i going to keep up with 30+ waifus? i can only watch my oshi's streams!

Context to the clip is crucial and the comments section is the indicator of how the clip is being received. Out of context hate clippers don't deserve the exposure to their channel.

i dont understand. so... by drama do you mean clips or criticism ? both ? most of the drama i have seen is in regards to criticism or laughing at dumb people online. does that mean we shouldn't do that or we will get "finded out on" ? =(

In the social media world of grifters, I consider them mini-grifters. They don't have any other content. It's really an issue requiring KZfaq terms of service verification. People can't love it when it works for them & bitch about it when it doesn't.

So the metric is profit?

0:35 I want to to.....

It can't be and not be at the same time, honey. Either you broke the window or you didn't.

That song is kick ass.

It's too complicated and too unfair so therefore I don't care if anyone violates copyright.

The DMCA/Copyright needs to be abolished. Permanently.

A clip channel taking fifteen seconds of a sound byte out of a five hour stream is absolutely and fundamentally transformative. Simple as.

Copyright should be abolished, intellectual """property""" is an oxymoron. How can it be a property right if it requires the violation of real world property rights to enforce?

I have a question. What if you take a piece of an artist's music and play it backwards to show "subliminal messages" in the music. And using that reversed audio in a video with images of the artist on the screen + texts (the video being around 20 seconds). Would that be considered copyright infringement most likely or not? Asking for a friend....😏

Your educational videos are the best

Fair game. I don't like them, don't follow them, but if I use clips of some whining attorney looking for a payday to show why lawyers aren't really people, then I should be able to. If I take your picture in public, it's MY picture.

Or... we can all just acknowledge there's no such thing as intellectual property and move on with our lives. It'd be better in the long run for everything.

Hi everyone

Are movie recaps fair use? My mind says no, but my heart says yes 😔

Can I clip your content?

Clipping is under fair use since it is by very nature transformative especially regarding titles and clips not being the full form or in the spirit of the original work. Satire, 75% is the situation. If it's less than that 75% it's going to count in favor of DMCA, the title needs to be different, the content must suggest a different message in the material than the full work suggested. In Sargon's case he was showing hypocrisy on her part in her pro Clinton video. Since it was for mockery, satire, and fundamentally different in message and details. It is a matter that I often have to explain the manner of in regards to the AI art and the artist in the style of art. It's a percentage of variation and context that needs to make it it's own work. I honestly HATE copyright in works that are not actually bought or sold. The currency of views being monetized through advertisers that get blocked anyway is stupid to me. Unsustainable system without patreon, superchats and memberships. It's something I study rather closely as art and art law does involve my craft though it's not the same work.