Using Copyrighted Content on YouTube WITHOUT A LICENSE | Copyright Fair Use Explained

Can you get around needing to ask permission if you 1) give the name of the book and author but 2)summarize what was written in a portion of the book rather than copy a word-for-word excerpt from the pages?

Great info. Thanks for sharing

Thank you so much, attorney Aiden. This is enlightening.

Great vlog Aiden, really informative! Chief Rehnquist's comment on standing "One must bite the mushroom to find out if it's a toadstool" [paraphrasing] comes to mind re using small segments of a copyrighted work without permission / license. Lots of people do exactly that, and skate / get away with it. Being that one who actually gets a C&D letter, or much worse an infringement lawsuit, can be costly-to-punishing. Thanks!

If I take a video of a work of art such as a painting, sculpture ect and do avideo commentary with music will this be allowed ? Example a store creates a cake or poster or something unique and I create a video explaining its artist value , will this work ???

If little to no creativity lowers the likelyhood of Copyright protection,

then anything with the involvement of Megan Fox or Justin Beiber or Michael Bay should ALWAYS be fair use, as there is NO Creativity there! NONE!

What if you used the video of a famous magician to explain on your channel how the magic trick was executed. Are you violating the fair use doctrine?

Thank you for informing us better!

You the GOAT🐐🐐🐐🐐All the way from Boston , you made / saved me a trillion

It can be RISKY to rely on Fair Use. Instead, create your own work, hire someone to create it, or obtain a license.

Can we use other social content of others by taking permission from original creators by messaging???? Just like Instagram material And if they agree in future then our video will be safe after viral??? Please reply I will appreciate it!!!

Great choice of subject.😊 Thank you for covering it. My big question is what about the compilation videos we find on YT, that may show a few seconds to a minute of a much longer video (that was usually a video made by a company to show off a product’s uses, etc),

The compilation videos do transform the video clips they use and make them a part of a new, longer video that usually resizes, or blurs out the sides of the clips, and does not include any voice or sound.
Usually a new text-over or voice-over covers the entire new video compilation and is only about a 8th to a 25th of the time of the new, compilation video.

The theme of those compilation videos are what I would consider a commentary, because they show many different brands or types of the same thing together along with fresh commentary.

As an example, a compilation of “Useful new kitchen gadgets”, “Amazing Heavy Equipment”, “Hidden Door Bookcases”, “Top 10 Vacuum Cleaners”., “15 Cool Space-Saving Furniture Pieces”, etc.

I have seen many of the creators (but not all), have a list in their video description, linking to the original videos they got their clips from,

One of the popular video compilation creators just stopped leaving a list of links recently. Not sure why.

But I think it is fair use because they use the clips in a transformative way.

They use only a small amount of the overall original video, and since it is part if a compilation of many similar clips in the same theme/category, they are doing it similar to a report, but for entertainment purposes only.

Of course they do make money off the ads YT places on their video compilations, and the makers of these video compilations usually have a disclaimer that they will take out any clip that a company complains about if it is theirs.

(But it’s free advertising for them, so they prob wouldn’t do that anyway.)
What do you think?

What about the disclaimer “I Don’t Own the Rights to this song or video clip”?!

Thank you!

I think an important point to drive home is that "Fair Use" is still something that needs to be decided by the court (It's not an automatic get out of jail free card). This means that if discovered the person who is using the copyrighted work will potentially be sued by the copyright holder. Law suits can be very costly for a wide variety of reasons and it's a gamble, especially if things go pear shaped and the court does not decide in the favor of the person using the copyrighted work. In short it's nearly always less expensive to request and pay for a license from the copyright holder PRIOR to using the work, rather than infringing upon someones intellectual property rights and then having to pay attorney fees, damages and court costs after the fact. In short, in most cases is probably best NOT to attempt to try and use other peoples IP.... or like the saying goes "When in doubt, leave it out". Of course, there are circumstances when this may not be possible, but in the vast majority of cases it's probably best to avoid getting dragged into court over a copyright claim.

I appreciate your knowledge of the specific laws pertaining to businesses.

What a golden tan you've achieved. Nice job.

What about review videos that use the trademarked logo of the tool that is being reviewed?

Thanks for all your hard work and guidance 💯👍🏽

You're a 10