If there are any humans actually investigating this on YouTube's side, they aren't trying very hard. A single web conference and any confusion would be gone.
Well, technically it isn't his video, it is a reaction video that contains the entire content of his video.
Youtube apparently considers such reaction videos as "fair use" and thus consideres the takedown request fradulent. Youtube also makes a lot of money off of the "reaction video" genre and has an incentive to view such videos as "fair use".
This guy needs to hire a copyright lawyer and should probably retract his removal request and file real legal papers.
It seems to me that he received an automated response intended to scare away people intentionally abusing YouTube's takedown feature before YouTube has to commit a human to adjudicate the dispute and thus incur labor expenses.
The form letter doesn't threaten him specifically, it only states policy. He needs to justify his takedown request, WHICH IS REASONABLE. If he fails to submit justification, there could be consequences, WHICH IS REASONABLE; frivolous and disingenuous takedown requests suppress fair use and free speech.
He needs to defend his takedown request. This is reasonable, and he should do so.
Instead he's being a little bitch and playing the victim card. I suspect because it gets him attention from his followers and the social justice crowd who are always looking for opportunities to blame and be outraged.
References:
[0:50] "Basically what YouTube is telling right now ... is that if I do not give away the rights to two of my videos ... that another YouTuber has uploaded on their channel that is much much much larger ... so they're making YouTube a lot more money... and I guess they don't want to upset him"
This is all bullshit. YouTube never asks him to give away any rights. There's no evidence that the number of subscribers has anything to do with the policy email he received.
[1:30] "I can absolutely prove to you that I'm going to lose my channel on Friday"
He does not prove anything of the sort. He's just building his strawman case.
There are plenty of groups that enjoy being outraged online, your mention of the "social justice crowd" is unnecessary and detracts from what you are trying to say.
8 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 26.0 ms ] threadYoutube apparently considers such reaction videos as "fair use" and thus consideres the takedown request fradulent. Youtube also makes a lot of money off of the "reaction video" genre and has an incentive to view such videos as "fair use".
This guy needs to hire a copyright lawyer and should probably retract his removal request and file real legal papers.
>Youtube apparently considers such reaction videos as "fair use"
Worked with Oracle v Google, might as well work for any other copyrighted work as well.
So far, it seems that reaction videos with original commentary, especially if they are aimed at a different audience, do count as transformative.
So the problem here is less Youtube, and more the confusing mess that is cooyright in the US.
The form letter doesn't threaten him specifically, it only states policy. He needs to justify his takedown request, WHICH IS REASONABLE. If he fails to submit justification, there could be consequences, WHICH IS REASONABLE; frivolous and disingenuous takedown requests suppress fair use and free speech.
He needs to defend his takedown request. This is reasonable, and he should do so.
Instead he's being a little bitch and playing the victim card. I suspect because it gets him attention from his followers and the social justice crowd who are always looking for opportunities to blame and be outraged.
References:
[0:50] "Basically what YouTube is telling right now ... is that if I do not give away the rights to two of my videos ... that another YouTuber has uploaded on their channel that is much much much larger ... so they're making YouTube a lot more money... and I guess they don't want to upset him"
This is all bullshit. YouTube never asks him to give away any rights. There's no evidence that the number of subscribers has anything to do with the policy email he received.
[1:30] "I can absolutely prove to you that I'm going to lose my channel on Friday"
He does not prove anything of the sort. He's just building his strawman case.
This way you can own them in court at a later date or put the things out for everyone to see.
Another potential solution is to crop a bit of your content video/photos & always have raw footage in such cases