Thank you very much for watching and commenting. It means a lot. Always feel free to email me directly: scott@lawbylg.com. Answering your questions: (1) There are certainly times where you can play more than a few seconds of a song and have it still be fair use. Courts recognize that sometimes a fair user will need to use a lot of the original. The law is that you should not use more than reasonably necessary for your legitimate fair use purpose, such as teaching, commenting, or criticism. Since it's so hard to predict how much a judge will think is reasonably necessary, judges are supposed to not be too nitpicky if you use a little more than they think necessary and give a little leeway. But playing long, uninterrupted clips without comment or an apparent fair use purpose will be suspect. That's like the example I pointed out where you played a clip over two minutes long, and there wasn't an apparent reason for playing a clip that long. I assume it was to show how great the singing was without autotune, but I don't think that would fly with a judge. (2) In terms of the copyright owners considering fair use when issuing a DMCA takedown request, just like my dog runs into the sandbox at the park even though there is a sign that says no dogs in the sandbox, sometimes not everyone pays attention to the rules. (3) I would need to look at any particular video to opine, but generally speaking, if you are confident a video is fair use, if I were you, I would at least dispute a content ID claim once. Per Google's content ID policies and from talking with other music KZfaqrs, my understanding is that you can dispute a content ID claim once without worrying much about getting a copyright strike. Most content ID claims are applied automatically. When you dispute it, they may realize it's likely fair use and not reinstate the content ID claim. Or they may just not act for some other reason. But, if they want to reinstate the content ID claim, they can just reinstate it, take your money, and they don't need to issue a DMCA takedown notice. You only force their hand if, after you dispute the claim and they reinstate it, you appeal their reinstatement of the content ID claim. At that point, they are forced to either backdown or issue a DMCA takedown notice, which would cause a copyright strike. If they do issue the copyright strike, you can dispute the DMCA takedown notice. Then they either have to backdown or file a lawsuit. And if your video is clearly fair use, you would have a decent chance of defeating a lawsuit and getting attorney's fees and being a hero the world over. But I understand you and other KZfaqrs not wanting the risk and hassle of litigation even if you are confident your video is fair use. By the way, here's KZfaq's nifty page on content ID claims and disputing them: support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454?hl=en&co=GENIE.Platform%3DAndroid#zippy=%2Cwhats-the-difference-between-the-dispute-and-escalate-to-appeal-options

@@LawLaughsMusic Great thanks for the info it's much appreciated!

@wingsofpegasus You are very welcome. Please feel free to email if you ever have a question or want to run a video by me. The way I see it, if you make a video showing how someone is using autotune, it is absurd that the musician who was using autotune (and his/her record company) is the one who is rewarded with the ad revenue. That would be like if someone who made a documentary about how athletes used steroids had to pay the athletes a 100% licensing fee for using video of them from their social media proving that they used steroids.

One aspect courts consider for fair use is how the use affects the market for the original. Not from a review saying the product is inferior because it is autotuned, but by supplanting the supply with your own. This obviously applies if you upload the original with no alterations (including comentary), but it also would apply if you were to, for example, demonstrate a subtle use of pitch correction that most listeners could not detect. This means people who just want to hear the song could choose to listen to your video instead of the original. This is where breaking that 2-3 minute section into smaller bits, even if the comentary with which you break it up is of minimal value, helps you.

It would be great to have you do a video together. On either KZfaq show. Maybe one each side.

Very good comment. It seems I came off as less pro-creator and pro-fair use than I am. Anyway… Probably KZfaq should either not allow classical performances to be put into the content ID system because of the likelihood of false positives or tweak it to be less likely to have false positives (even if it means an uptick in false negatives). The way I see it, KZfaq has the content ID system to give copyright owners a way to have a financial incentive (taking the ad revenue from the person who posted the video) not to send DMCA takedown notices and remove videos. That way the videos remain on KZfaq and Google gets its 55% share of the ad revenue. The content ID system allows for a lot of copyrighted music to be used on KZfaq in situations that are not fair use. On the one hand, when that works as intended, that’s a win-win for everyone. But the problem is when it doesn’t. Then it can be abusive. Generally, I want to see KZfaq doing more to adopt its practices to prevent the abuse. I understand that it’s impractical for them to turn into a copyright court that decides every copyright dispute. Also, I understand they have to comply with the DMCA. But KZfaq could do better. Part of that may be that as long as Google gets their 55% of the ad revenue, it doesn’t matter much to them who gets the 45%. And to the degree they have an interest, it might not align with what is fair. For example, they have much more incentive to keep the record companies happy than individual KZfaqrs.

@@LawLaughsMusic And yours is a very good reply. My comment was not intended to be a critique of your video, but simply to share a different but related problem that highlights problems with YT's system. Thank you for your video. I found it very informative.

My pleasure! And I didn’t take it take it as criticism. I’m married with children. I know what real criticism is.

Thanks for the comment. I previously made a video on this channel about the Fighter and the Kid podcast abusing DMCA takedown notices to bring down a critical channel during the time it took for them to lose their BS court case. Judges can help discourage this by awarding attorney's fees in these situations. (I am not saying that would solve the problem. But it would help.)

@@LawLaughsMusic I guess awarding attorney's fees might discourage some, but it probably wouldn't work with goliath's like Netflix as the cost might seem like peanuts to them. However the bad PR when they lose might have some affect on Netflix as the channel I was referring to is quite big, nudging close to a million subscribers, and the media might pick up the story. Also KZfaq might take notice about them abusing their copyright strike system and fix it so when an abuse as obvious as this happens, they can look at it properly in house when the channel appeals to them and just remove the strike themselves. Also hopefully send the abuser a warning too.

Great post. On the one hand, we need successful music KZfaqr's to push back and force these people to either back down or file BS lawsuits (which the KZfaqr would presumably win and might even get an award of some of their attorney's fees). But then again, I can understand that when even a video that gets 1 million views only earns a few thousand dollars or so in ad revenue, not to want to risk even getting into a game of chicken with these people. It sucks. And then partly because this gets litigated so infrequently, there is very little legal precedent directly on KZfaq educational videos and fair use.

There's also countries where fair use is nor a thing, youtube has to follow the laws of all the countries they operate in

Ninth Circuit is probably the most important circuit court for KZfaq cases since California is in the Ninth Circuit.

@@LawLaughsMusic The 9th circuit screws Americans more than any court with their liberal decisions.

That sucks. I made a video back in the day on my original channel re video game reaction videos. But I believe (nobody rely on this since I'm not looking it up and going off memory) that Mojang specifically allows for reaction videos and even the use of the music in the game if it's incidental.

That was true of the original Eula. I'd have to look at the updated one since Microsoft bought it, but I believe it is still true for the old and new music. The difference now is Daniel kept control of his music even after the purchase. He's the only one that can claim it since he never signed it over. The groups I mentioned are known for claiming the music, and don't represent who they claim for. In my case I first contacted the person who did a remix of the music. They had no idea who the claimer was. I'll remove anything that gets claimed after checking the claim. That one specifically I knew was a false claim due to the history of false claims on that music.

Appreciate it very much! I try.

Thank you! Appreciate it.

I would like to, but I feel I would need to see the blocked video. Otherwise, it’s hard for me to assess what happened.

@@LawLaughsMusic he shows it! The video is entitled: “KZfaq is asking ME to trim ME out of MY video!!!”

Yes, I watched it again more carefully and you are right. Thank you very much. I’m going to hopefully film a reaction video today.

@@LawLaughsMusic Excellent! Thank you!

LOL, thanks for the comment!

Yes, videos that are not monetized can receive copyright strikes. They also can have content ID claims put on them where the copyright owner causes ads to be played on the video so the copyright owner can then take the 55% share of the revenue that typically goes to the video creator (with the other 45% going to Google).

@@LawLaughsMusic Thank you, that`s good to know.

Yeah, the record companies unfairly put these guys in a bind.

Rick Beato is a joke.

@@johnsmith-tn8rn What an incisive comment. Would you like to elaborate?

@@johnsmith-tn8rn I agree with ​ @lassesaikkonen501 ... Make your case...

​@@lassesaikkonen501 I agree with you dude (or dudette)... Rick has always been REALLY straight forward.

Great question. Without seeing the video that was blocked, I can't say for sure. I think I will make a video discussing this, although it will be more conjecture than I like. But it seems like KZfaq negligence not to follow up with a reaction on that video.

Very good question. Without researching it, I would assume that this would not be fair use. This seems to me to be an example of creating a derivative work, which is something that cannot be done without permission of the copyright owner. I assume that either the content ID system is having a hard time catching the videos or that the copyright owners are allowing the videos to remain but are using the content ID system to take the ad revenue.

@@LawLaughsMusic Yeah, I had wondered. I once heard that parody is protected and I didn't know if it somehow fell into an odd category like that. A stretch but it is really odd to me that they seems to be the only youtube channels not getting strikes. Maybe the boosted and retuned basslines mess with their detection software. I hate to out any channels, just in case, but you can search rebass on youtube and find plenty of channels, the algorithm recommend them often. I have made a few hundred tracks for personal use that I would love to share them (for free, just think it would be interesting to see something I made out in the wild) but want the potential legal headaches. I was friends with an ASCAP guy years ago who would go around to bars and venues listening for unauthorized playing of their music and documenting it and I suppose we all remember the RIAA lawsuits 15 years back. Things seem calmer now but I am sure the option is there for them still. Thanks for the reply. I plan to watch through your content when I get a bit of time off.

Thank you very much! I feel so international now.

​@@LawLaughsMusicYou have another Aussie here too!🇦🇺

Great! Can someone from New Zealand watch too? Or can it only be one or the other?

@@LawLaughsMusic I hope a Kiwi (what we call New Zealanders & is a flightless bird from there) does eventually pop up on your Channel. We love our 'cousins from across the ditch' and are very close. The ditch refers to the Tasman Sea that runs between Australia and New Zealand. We are also bonded by our military. On the 25th April each year, we both commemorate ANZAC Day. On this date during WWI, we landed on the Turkish beaches of Gallipoli in 1915. Normally, we were thrust under the banner of the British, yet came of age during this time as a fighting force in our own right, although we have separate armed forces. ANZAC stands for Australian and New Zealand Military Corps. We're vicious rivals in sport, yet love them dearly off the field. We are both Commonwealth Nations too. New Zealand is a beautiful country and well worth a visit if looking for a holiday destination. You'd need a considerable amount of time to tackle Australia considering our continent is wider than the moon! I'm sure that with time, your Channel will become quite international.

​​@@LawLaughsMusic😂 I dunno does copyright apply 😏

Glad it was removed. Were you associated with the university? Who issued the DMCA notice? While there is no copyright in the composition, there would be a copyright in the recording by the university ensemble.

@@LawLaughsMusic I was contracted to record the music and post it to an unlisted KZfaq channel by the university. The strike was by a European publisher- Wise Music Group. They claim everything that they can whether or not they produced it. I think that that they are hoping to claim any monetization of any classical music. The performance was probably viewed by about 12 people. Lotsa money there !

That’s pathetic of them. Such abuse. Thanks for letting me know about this.

Correct, KZfaq never decides the merits of a copyright dispute. If the KZfaqr keeps disputing the claim or DMCA takedown notice, the copyright owner has to decide to either backdown or file a lawsuit. If it’s clearly fair use, there is a real risk the copyright owner loses and has to pay the KZfaqr’s attorney’s fees. But I understand that for most KZfaqrs the risk is too great to fight this far. But they should at least initially dispute the automated content ID claim. That’s basically risk free and will often work.

Great comment. I remember a while back on a personal channel posting a video from an amusement park where I didn't even realize there was a Tom Petty song playing in the background. Whoever administered his rights demonetized the video (which caused ads to be played), and the video had like 10 views.

@@LawLaughsMusic Exactly! You were innocently shooting your video and the Top Petty song "invaded" your audio track. You didn't want it there, it was purely by accident that it was there. You *SHOULD NOT BE PENALISED* for something beyond your control.

Thank you very much. One problem with copyright law on KZfaq is that even for someone successful like Fil, it is difficult to put up a fight even when he knows he is right. If a video gets 1 million views, he would be lucky to earn $5,000 in revenue. I can see someone like Fil not wanting to risk a lawsuit over $5,000 in revenue, even if he knows he will probably win and will likely be awarded part of his attorney's fees at some point down the line. Of course, that kind of problem is not limited to just copyright. The very high expense of litigating can create problems for standing up for one's rights in many situations. It's unfortunate.

Two things here. One, as to content farms, my understanding is that certain creators like Joe Rogan and Andrew Huberman tolerate people posting clips from their podcasts, but they put in content ID claims and demonetize (take the creator's share of the ad revenue) from those videos. Perhaps there are smaller KZfaq creators who are purely being taken advantage of. (Or maybe some people are getting away with it on the big guys too and I'm wrong.) Two, I never claimed that KZfaq has humans decide copyright disputes. I think I specifically said the opposite. KZfaq never gets involved in deciding who is right or wrong in a copyright dispute. They essentially have an automated process that allows content creators to keep disputing until the copyright owner either has to file a lawsuit or backdown. If a lawsuit is filed, then KZfaq keeps the video down until the court process plays out. But that is simply following the DMCA.

Thank you very much! Thanks for the feedback re a few odd audio cuts. It's better than having an odd face.

Great, glad I was helpful. Thanks for commenting.

Re Fil's recent video about being blocked, that looks like something really screwy/wrong happened. But generally, if you sing a cover song on KZfaq, unless there is fair use, the copyright owner can block it/demonetize it.

Probably the videos playing recorded music that aren’t fair use are being demonetized and the copyright holders have chosen to take the creator’s ad revenue rather than block the video. But some copyright holders choose to block or at least block in certain situations.

@@LawLaughsMusic I see what you mean. That might indeed explain it. Thanks for your reply!

As a lawyer, for me it was always a controversial place at the forefront of modern copyright issues, even before Google bought KZfaq. But that's what happens when you were in law school when KZfaq was founded and were taking internet law classes.

Actually makes the most sense if you think about it. Copyright owners are unlikely to license their material to people criticizing it.

@@LawLaughsMusic Yes! wingofpeg often points out things that the music industry would rather not be widely known. :)

Thanks for commenting. Responding to your points: (1) I’m a big believer of fair use and consider myself a fair use hawk. However, as a lawyer I also need to consider what the law is, not just what I think it should be. (2) A for-profit video can be fair use, just like for-profit newspapers and documentaries constantly take advantage of fair use. (3) I think Fil’s videos are generally fair use, except likely on occasions I’ve noticed where he seems to play long, uninterrupted clips to seemingly admire the song or musician. As long as he doesn’t mind having those videos demonetized and the copyright holders are fine with the arrangement, then there’s nothing wrong with it even though that wouldn’t be fair use. (4) I think KZfaq should do more to stop abusive behavior on the content ID system.

That wouldn't be copyright strikes, it would be demonetizing the videos (taking the ad revenue) through the content ID system. If they issue a copyright strike, the video is removed from KZfaq, and so there is no ad revenue to take. Paul Davids did a video on this a while ago about Miserlou. It was a good video.

@@LawLaughsMusic Thank you for that.

​@@chrisnemec5644 it all still falls under the category of KZfaq not protecting fair use creators and allowing or enabling bullying in this way.

@@eschelar That's true.

I agree.

Thank you very much! Appreciate it

That's a great question. I am an attorney in the US, not the UK. I don't talk fancy enough, and I think I would find a wig too itchy. So there's two ways for me to comment on this. One is that for the most part US law would matter more than UK law. KZfaq is a US platform, and their rules are very US-centric. Also, for the most part, the rights owners and administrators of the music catalogues are going to be American. The other is that my understanding is that Copyright law is pretty similar in the UK and US. Much of copyright law is fairly standard over most countries because of international treaties and conventions. I believe that the fair dealings standard in the UK is more limited than the fair use standard in the US. However, I assume that Fil's videos would constitute fair dealings as well, to the extent he is using a clip to provide analysis reviewing and/or criticizing the original. But I have never researched these issues under British law specifically.

That's an interesting point. You are theoretically correct that KZfaq could block any content it wants that uses someone else's copyrighted material even if it is fair use. However, that is not what KZfaq chooses to do. KZfaq allows videos that are fair use. However, KZfaq does not get involved in deciding whether a copyright claim is legitimate or whether something is fair use. At the end of the day, if the person who posts the content keeps disputing a content ID claim or a DMCA takedown notice, the copyright holder has to file a lawsuit to keep the video blocked (and a copyright strike in effect). The issue is that a lot of people who post on KZfaq are afraid of that happening even if they would likely win in court. What I can tell you is that there are relatively few cases where the copyright holders sue and there is a fight over fair use. I think that is a combination of most KZfaqrs not wanting to risk a court fight, and probably the copyright holders tend to back down when they are forced to choose to either sue or give up.

@@LawLaughsMusic Thank you for your response. And thanks for showing the KZfaq "Content ID dispute and appeal process" screen. I was able to search on that and find the KZfaq Creators channel, and learn more about the process. And I see that KZfaq does explicitly say, in the video at least, that they allow Fair Use. I am not a KZfaq video creator and so am not directly affected. But am a fan both of the musicians who originally created the music, and also of the KZfaqrs who analyze or comment on it. And it disappoints when I would like to hear particular music explained, included in "best of" lists, etc., but the KZfaqrs aren't allowed to use that music.

You are very welcome! Appreciate it

Thanks for the comment. For the content ID system, it is KZfaq's own creation, not something found in the copyright law. I assume they implemented it to give copyright owner's a mechanism to earn money off infringing videos so that the copyright owners do not demand that the videos be removed. That way Google still gets its 55% of the ad revenue.

This sounds clearly not to be fair use. So probably one of two things is happening. One could be that the person is just getting away with it. The other is that it could be that the musician's heirs/administrators have chosen to use the content ID system to demonetize the video (take the ad revenue that typically goes to the video creator) instead of blocking the video. For instance, a lot of people post clips from Joe Rogan or Andrew Huberman. My understanding is that Joe Rogan and Andrew Huberman often allow the clips to remain up on KZfaq, but they use the content ID system to take the revenue. That's probably a good idea because they are still making money and it's getting their content and name distributed more widely.

@@LawLaughsMusic This Content Creator is using George Michael videos and literally flooding KZfaq with both full videos and #shorts numerous times per day. I saw a comment by someone calling her out for not giving credit to those she steals the content from, such as video taken from a concert and is posted by the concert goer. The fact that she cuts down and blackens the sides of the video appears to me that she is treading a fine line. It just leaves a sour taste in the mouth to see her get away with abusing the fair usage rules. As I'm an admirer of the late George Michael, naturally KZfaq flood my recommendations with her videos and it's wearing rather thin. I already have these videos collected on a playlist for public usage, which is how I know what she is doing. There is no-one she won't steal from, including the official George Michael Channel where Vevo upload with 3.4m subscribers and the official WHAM! Channel with 1.79m subscribers. As the KZfaq algorithm recognises that I'm interested in George Michael and Wham!, her content is all over the place and blocking other content from being recommended. I'm getting so tired of deleting her content everyday. I use this platform due to suffering severe chronic spinal pain and this attempts to take my mind off the unrelenting pain, but it's not enjoyable when only one type of content from this Channel is getting in the way of my endless other interests. I was hoping that there was some way of preventing the sheer amount of content she uploads that is interfering with my enjoyment of the platform. Just crossing fingers that she finds another interest. I hope she doesn't find my playlist with over 1750 videos which will keep her in overload! I don't wish to make it private, as I want others to enjoy the content I've gathered together. I might have to make it private though to prevent her gaining access to an immense amount of content that has taken me many, many years to build up. I do appreciate your response. As I never create content, I don't need to delve into the rules and regulations of video making, so I hope your Channel grows to help so many who simply don't know where to turn when things go wrong with KZfaq. Thanks again.

Thank you very much.

Thanks for commenting

Thank you very much for the support!

@@LawLaughsMusic 👍

I think there’s a few reasons. One is that people are risk adverse. Two is that few KZfaqrs are multi millionaires and most of those few don’t make music education or commentary videos. Three is that you don’t make much ad money on any one video. So that cuts the incentive to fight in any particular case. But that said, I want to see more people fight and be less risk adverse.

@@LawLaughsMusic I think you'll find that it's "Averse" rather than "Adverse" in this case?

lol, yeah, that’s what I get for responding to messages on my phone