Yah, like a satire or parody video. Which your bots still took down. I had to appeal to the producer company of the original show, Sarah and Duck. They gave me my video back~. They were actually cool about it. But this shows that your bots DO NOT understand satire, parody, memes, or human humor in general.
Which is what my video was. But your BOTS did NOT understand that. The people at BBCW Family, the HUMANS I appealed too understood. Youtube, what I'm saying is these bots are not working. Remove them, then bring them back when they're fixed. And if they're still broke? Keep taking them down until they actually work right.
But... You just said there are cases where fair use can be applied without permission of the original owner... Wat...?-Btw, I put no hate toward the girl in this video! This is not me yelling at her.This comment is me ragging on whoever MADE these rules. This girl didn't make them, she's just the messenger. So, again, no hate toward you girl!
timestamps and (1)
YouTube ads: I'm going to do that
"There's always a risk involved when using someone else's copyrighted work." Sucks...I have some great content ideas where I only sample a few seconds of content for commentary purposes, but it's not worth risking my entire YouTube channel.
That does not address and answer the problem at all. What that comments mean is that, let's say, out of a 20 min video where only 10 sec or a min of copyrighted material is used for exemple, the claimants gets all the revenue for the whole video and not the portion of which the material is used.
Here's a massive problem with YouTube's "fair use" approach, however."Companies are claiming just a few seconds of a video. How is that not abuse?"Ignoring the "lol just use 3 seconds of audio and it's fine" nonsense people try to pull - copyrighted material for only a few seconds of a video DOES NOT at any point in licensing of copyrighted material result in ALL OF THE EARNINGS of that video being taken. There's so many elements of copyright-able work in a single video, that just copyright claim of the composition or recording of a song should NEVER take the entire revenue of a video. Period. This is a lazy, stealing method of not providing a tool for creators to license out these chunks of material. Sure, not every publisher will allow such licensing - but many do, YouTube just isn't facilitating that.
timestamps and (2)
second exactly of a song. At it's stated that youtube doesn't have the right to determine fair use, only a judge does. Then how can youtube, as a company justify copyright claims and strikes? They don't have the authority to determine if it isn't fair use without consulting a judge, yet they do it anyways. In addition to that youtube as a company lets random people without official copyright ownership rampantly go around and copyright claim content that isn't even under their ownership with fake aliases, and don't think twice about it. Youtube's system is deliberately incompetent just so that they can have it easier. Twitch is better, because they have legitimate guidelines rather than random people claiming whatever they want. The "restored monetization" that is "guaranteed" after the allegedly copyright claimed content is removed is a blatant and inexcusable lie.
so without question, rebuttal, or discussion, YouTube automatically sides with the person claiming the video and forces the defendant to yield unless the issue is actually taken to a court of law?! We don't want a video on Fair Use (we can read our country's laws and legislation, and study case law to educate ourselves). What we want is an honest and detailed explanation of the YouTube copyright system and how it functions (or doesn't).
That's definitively not true. I have had MANUAL claims on my videos with NO timestamps whatsoever. I have denounced this to YouTube because I couldn't find nor recognises in my videos the copied material and all I have being said is "contact the owner"
If only a court can determine fair use then shouldn’t they have to go to court to even make the claim?
